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.

 

New theory suggests that we may not be alone after all

page: 4
51
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Trying to associate probability to other life forms is pointless. They either exist, or they don't.


Of course you are within your rights to interpret the universe in this context but it's not really how science (for what it is worth) operates.

Much of cosmology, astrophysics, theoretical physics, etc, works by deduction, probability, and indirectly observed evidence. Dark matter and even black holes are not directly observable, their existence is understood and inferred by observing their effects on other stellar bodies.

Some of these phenomena have more circumstantial and/or theoretical evidence to legitimize their existence than others. So the more indirect evidence the higher the probability.


[edit on 16 Jul 2009 by schrodingers dog]




posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


There is no proof as it has not been proven that the Universe is infinite. But it likely is and if so then mathematically that means there HAS TO BE other planets with intelligent life given the infinite system.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Five hundread billion galaxcies in our universe.Three hundread billion stars just in our galaxcy.Each star would have a average of three planets.900 billion planets.Even if there was life on only 1% of thoses planets,that 9 million planets with life.Would that be enough to convince people there is life out there.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by GORGANTHIUM]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Well said (last post you made,lol), although it would be a MAJOR help to cosmology if there was a direct observation and evidence of one of the postulates. But yes, the mathematical probabilities pretty much guarantee many other intelligent creatures (well infinite number really, but let us not get into all that here,lol). Even assume the Universe is not infinite, let us say it has stopped growing at the Hubble Volume (which we know it hasn't, and yes I am using the Hubble Volume incorrectly here but it pretty much is the same thing as the observable universe--no semantics arguing!lol...) then we are still left with 24 SEXTILLION stars besides ours that could harbor life. Based on our current rate of discovery of planet harboring stars and the current theories on Gilese 581e(not including moons in this statement) we could assume that life capable planets are at least relatively common. Say 1 out of every 100 stars has a life bearing planet, then say one out of every 100 of those stars develops life, then so on and so on... It is just the odds AGAINST intelligent life elsewhere are staggering, you probably have a better chance right now of being hit by lighting fice times in the same spot while a Pleadian mothership crashes in your backyard AT the same time as the shape shifting Reptilians from parallel universe P3X-2345 take over North Korea!LOL....... You get the point though.........


Oh, I left out an ELE asteroid hitting your house too! (((I hope that does not happen to you my friend!LOL........)))



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Bear Creek
 


There might very well be tracks we can detect. The problem is as our technology towards the possibility of Efficient Space Travel increases so do all of our other technologies.

We might DEFEAT aging and disease WELL before we are even capable of leaving our own solar system!

Not a very big track to leave behind if we are completely unrecognizable as a "reproducing for existence" species when we finally achieve warp capability.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I think there are a few fundamental issues in play here that no one seems to addresse.

1. The universe might be infinite to us, but distance as we know it is finite in how far can we reasonably say life can exist and we also have a chance to meet it. I understand that people want to disregard this issue by saying stuff like “worm holes” “other dimensions” “warp factor”
etc, but right now if we use the speed of light as a measuring tool our galaxy is about it in terms of meeting other intelligence and that greatly reduces the odds.

2. Is intelligence a good trait in evolution or a bad one? I ask this because as we evolved over tens of millions of years we can look back and see one line of good traits that got us to where we are today, but looking from the start forward you would see uncountable number of split offs that lead to dead ends of bad traits that just didn’t make it. We also can see that the more complex life becomes the more fragile it becomes to its environment. So today we have a human that can’t survive a week outside of its artificial environments, and with the intelligences to end global life. I can’t say either of these are long lasting good traits in evolution, so intelligence might just come and go throughout the universe as a bad trait that just has a split off that takes a little longer to reach its dead end.

3. Intelligence is not the only thing needs, we need thumbs too. What I'm saying here is there are a lot of different factors to an intelligent space faring race to get them into space in the first place. Dolphins might be intelligent but they are not building rockets and heading into space anytime soon.

4. Just like distance is a factor, time is also a factor, and so creates a finite period to work with. When you take the earth as an example it took 5 billion years to make us and that is about a 1/3 the age of the universe. Hawkins went into detail on this and also suggested it took global catastrophe to get us started and we are due another one any day now, so it is hard to say if we will survive 100s of millions of years like the dinosaurs did. This just adds the rarity to life like us in it takes a long time to evolve to and easy to get rid of.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TroyB

The question in my mind is where did this energy come from? who/what created it?, and let's not forget the existance of 'dark matter' proof that everything must have a balance...good/bad light/dark etc...


To answer your question… What went on before our universe started with let’s say the big bang doesn't matter for we can only comprehend what goes on within our universe. The idea that there needs to be a start is only required within our universal boundaries, so what was before the big bang, before our universe, is moot.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

4. Just like distance is a factor, time is also a factor, and so creates a finite period to work with. When you take the earth as an example it took 5 billion years to make us and that is about a 1/3 the age of the universe. Hawkins went into detail on this and also suggested it took global catastrophe to get us started and we are due another one any day now, so it is hard to say if we will survive 100s of millions of years like the dinosaurs did. This just adds the rarity to life like us in it takes a long time to evolve to and easy to get rid of.


Hi X ... mostly agree with you on 1 -3 but I must respectfully disagree on 4.

Measurements are inherently flawed by definition. Without getting too philosophical, they are fundamentally rooted in relativity. We have observed many phenomena within which relativity fails us ... quantum theory (subatomic particle behavior), infinity, black holes, string theory, even gravity cannot be clearly or completely defined with relativity. (forgive me if I err in any of those examples as I am not fluent in scientific knowledge but merely truing to make a point)

As I said earlier time itself is the most elusive of all our created relative concepts. To underpin a 'rare earth' theory on such constructs when there is ample evidence of the underlying flaw in reasoning seems a clear contradiction.

[edit on 16 Jul 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   
huggs all

awsome thread!!

so many wonderfu replies also!

Carter's theory lacks a lot of common scense.

Its perceived by him more on how he/we look at life and what makes us have a heart beat.

Im sure theres thousands upon thousands of planets with life on them with just more than microbes on them.
(Im sure there miliions+ of them alone).

just imagine all the moons and such as well that are 10 or 20 times the size of our earth.

its an awfull big playground out there in the vastness of space and we are not even a peice of dust compared to its size.
its so big its hard to comprehend it.

life may be rare out there but not as rare as carter states...

kinda a strange way of thought but say if we had a spaceship that could go warp speed 9 or such we'd be thinking then the universe is packed with life then and we would comprehend it differently.

we are subject to time and space.


great post!

huggs everyone!!



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Measurements are inherently flawed by definition. Without getting too philosophical, they are fundamentally rooted in relativity. We have observed many phenomena within which relativity fails us ... quantum theory (subatomic particle behavior), infinity, black holes, string theory, even gravity cannot be clearly or completely defined with relativity. (forgive me if I err in any of those examples as I am not fluent in scientific knowledge but merely truing to make a point)

As I said earlier time itself is the most elusive of all our created relative concepts. To underpin a 'rare earth' theory on such constructs when there is ample evidence of the underlying flaw in reasoning seems a clear contradiction.

[edit on 16 Jul 2009 by schrodingers dog]


I agree, but looking at life I would need to look at what is observable and so far earth and mars is about it as examples. I am sure life will be found on mars and I’m sure life is not rare in our galaxy if a planet is the right size and right spot life will more likely form than not.

Also, I would think life outside of our ability to one day observe or interact with might as well not be there, and so doesn't matter. With that said I would think life normally would fall into some rather strick guidelines for it to happen. (At least life that we could detect) And that type of life would function within the general boundaries of Newton physics and time as we know it.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   
I want to disagree with Intelligence being a bad trait. Intelligence is our ability to process data. The more One's and Zero's that you can process the higher your chance of survival goes up. Eye's take processing power, the sense of touch takes processing power, hearing. speech, smell all take processing power. You need more neurons or whatever type of One and Zero's system a creatures brain or organic computer uses. The more neurons to process information the higher the chance of survival.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Yeah, I know what you mean ... I think what we have here is a philosophical argument on how much direct or indirect/circumstantial evidence each of us require to accept something as fact. For some I suppose nothing short of meeting an alien species will constitute fact. Others may be willing to accept something on token or no evidence as a simple matter of belief.

But it is not really what we're talking about here. At least that's not the point made in the OP. Neither I or the cited article claims that ETI exists. The point being made is that there is compelling scientific evidence to allow for a broader spectrum upon which to base probability.


[edit on 16 Jul 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
I think it all depends on who you ask too..

Some NASA scientists think the chances of finding life on mars or other planets is nill.. Some scientists believe life is widespread throughout the universe and that it's quite likely we will find some form life on mars, maybe even Europa.

So.. It isn't so difficult to understand why people writing papers and articles about how life is probably rare would use quotes and statements from the scientists who already think this..

And people writing papers and aritcles about life being widespread would use quotes and statements about scientists who have already come on the record as believing this to be so.

There are alot of articles and theories out there from people on both sides of the aisle. But we still have no way of knowing how correct either side is yet. So all we are left with are alot of conflicting theories and very different ways of thinking about the universe. It really all comes down to what you personally believe.

The scientific consensus counts for alot less when it deals with things we don't fully understand yet. As long as the scientists are still fighting amongst themselves on this, no one person is necessarily a better authority than any another.

-ChriS

[edit on 16-7-2009 by BlasteR]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


Nice find warrenB, I remember this one ..
' I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick a¤¤, and I'm all out of gum' . '




posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
It seems that possibly the largest step forward in the argument for life being common is our ability to detect planets. While they are saying that many are Jupiter style planets - this is mainly because using our current means of detection, those planets are the easiest to find.

It seems almost certain there are many intelligent species - and space faring ones.

Something worth considering is - if a space faring species arose say 4 or 5 billion years ago - and they have superluminal transport - then they would have had time to either populate or at least visit every star in the galaxy by now.

If life isn't incredibly rare - then this scenario is close to certain.

This leads me to think that our existence here is not an accident - and that this planet was visited, and we were either designed directly, or were allowed to evolve to what we are. It would also indicate that they will be either expecting us to contact them, or they might keep tabs on us once in a while.

I have always been against the idea of being 'visited' by aliens - I perceived too many technical difficulties - assuming they would have to detect us then come to visit.

However, if they knew we were here - or they are observing us constantly - then seeing their ships is very likely.

If I were observing a primitive intelligent species - I would not like to make contact before I saw them manage their population, and govern themselves effectively without violent competition over resources - and possibly you might wait until they had eliminated aging - going from a mortal to immortal society is going to be a huge social upheaval.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I believe that we are not alone, though the quest for intelligent life is piontless!
If there were intelligent lifeforms out there that were technologically advanced, why would they even bother coming here? They could see us as nothing more than little unintelligent ants. Are you going to go and help a colony of ants? We are one of the smallest planets. This suggests that they could be gigantic and that they wouldn't necesarilly fit on our planet, they wouldn't even see us, we would be microscopic....


Lets just face it.... we are nothing compared to the universe...



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


wow nice find, and i had to laugh when one of the scientists said "we may be alone".. for someone supposedly intelligent and gifted, he knows nothing



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


don't forget Enceladus! the very large caverns below the watery surface..
in the manchester evening news not long ago they were theorising on what type of life could be there.. and someone said Trogdolytes perhaps frog looking.
i was like :O

[edit on 17/05/09 by Raider of Truth]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AncientShade
 


Gee thanks for making me feel insignificant...

but seriously very good points all around, but i'm sure someone out there knows of us


and Hitler's first recording at the 1936 olympic games how far would they go?

[edit on 17/05/09 by Raider of Truth]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


the Gliese System and Gliese 581 is the one i am most looking forward to, roll on 2028!


20 light years is extremely close in space terms, if the technology to increase speed is mastered/found theoritically we can travel to systems like that within minutes,hours or days even a few weeks.. any of them speeds would seriously help all of Mankind explore the galaxy more.. we can't be stuck on the same rock for all time!



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join