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.

 

What's the probability of extraterrestrial life?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
What is the probability that we are a singular anomaly in this universe, that there is no other "life" but our own and that which can only be found on this planet?

The answer to that question will also answer your query.




posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Romanian
 


well he did get it wrong.. its more stars in sky than grains of sand

but who cares? i mean pft one grain of sand on one beach has life on it vs NONE on the rest

even if its one beach? kinda ming bending to think we are alone lol

its even more mind bending because we are here even taking about it like its some what normal to be alone in a universe that is endless ?

then again jesus walked on water so whats the problem i mean thats normal right


I dont mean that in a bad way for you guys who want a god type farther figure to hold your hand.. myself im a kinda real basic human

no god just idiots running amok


the basic concept of money should point that out! its based on PROFITS ie screwing each other over lol

i wonder if ANTS or any other living thing uses money! oh thats right they dont because we are special and made by god..

sounds like the biggest fantacy ever.. do you know on ATS the biggest conspircay theory did not hit number one?

HOW DID YOU GET HERE and WHY

kinda left that one out .. guess people like to focus on the little things like aliens bases and end of the worlld!!

i thought none of that is possible without humans being here in the first place? guess i was wrong and being here is a given., kinda like 10$ off at your local store buy one get one free!

hrhr funny



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


with all the respect, i believe that the equation is wrong.

First - there are far more stars with planetary system than we previously believed.

Then 2) life is emerging far easier tan believed before too , i posted a vido on this subject.

3) distances are irrelevand for advanced races. How could someone that used to live like 100 years before Cristofor Columbus would ever immagine we can travel over the ocean is several hours? same , we tend to think about "aliens" like they actually have the same technological level with us.

4) if several civilisation emerged to pass the "type 2" level, they actually would spreat to countless other solar system that we would tend to classify as "dead". Let us take for example - a civilisation that started the Space Age like one billion years ago. They could have the time to spread across the most part of the known universe. This is something the equation does not really consider. What is the probability for the moon to have life? yet it could have within 100 years human colonies


there are more ideeas too , however just wanted to point out that the classical equation is very very likely to be wrong.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by Romanian]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


well no it dont. because its not the same question


You are hyperbolling ie You are trying to turn the question he asked upon its self when it is not possible because you are here to ask it

-1 for you and +1 for him

Logic



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Romanian
 


It is wrong because it does not factor in YOU ...

How can one possibly make a guess without the person doing it?

How hard will a rock fall onto my head from 100ft?

Well how can i know if im not here? if im just not here?????????

That is what people fail to grasp on here...

There CAN NOT BE LIFE OUT SIDE OF EARTH BECAUSEEEEE?

BECAUSE WAT?

because the universe made YOU special? little earth is special??

Yep piss on my foot and tell me its raining...

The only reason its special is because WE the human race only HAVE ONE PLACE TO LIVE

and the only reason we do is because we piss about all day being selfish

Fact .. if you took all the money we waste buying CRAP to pass the time untill GOD or his son shows up we would be on MARS and the MOON and out in the universe exploring

humans have lost there guile.. and settled for friggen pop idol

We are a EPIC fail of nature if you ask me..



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I would suggest that the amount of life that could be out there is incalculable, since we only have theories about the number of stars with planets there are. It is reasonable to assume a great number. But these are assumptions. Do we have any evidence. Damn right we do. If just one UFO report is accurate, then we can assert that there IS life out there, and cannot put a limit on the amount of life that we can expect. If you have seen an object in the skies that are clearly apart from anything known originating on earth, then you have proof for yourself. If you believe one report that seems good to you (i.e. the Phoenix Lights for starters), then you can have a high degree of confidence.

As for me, I already have my answer and I am looking forward to having more people able to join me.


Live Long and Prosper



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Don't forget about the life that's outside of this universe too. Infinite number of Universes, I guess Parallel Universes. So I guess 100,000,000,000 stars* 100,000,000,000 galaxies* infinite number of Parallel Universes= A lot of life and a lot of me's.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Drake's forumal: level 3 ETs, masters of space and time, oversee'ers of the omniverse, creating and co-creating all life on all planets as projects, and utlizing earth like planets like libraries, sharing resources, able to create worlds on everything including moons, and worlds within worlds, as inside astroids, is not only probable, it would be impossible for the universe to be any other way.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by Unity_99]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 


You've out confused me trying to out confuse everyone else.

Kudos to you



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I have already listed the evidence that we know beyond conjecture.


You can talk about amino acids in nebula and water on the moon all you want, but it still does not tell us about several factors in the equation. Factors such as the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets (yes, even that), fraction of those that actually go on to develop life at some point and then intelligent life, and the lifetime of those communicating civilizations, is conjecture. Even when we account for ourselves, we are using only one data point that may not be representative of the galaxy-at-large.

And there are several factors the equation does not account for. It accounts only for planets, not moons when it is now believed the moons around Jovian worlds could support life. It does not account for the rate of cosmic disasters. It does not account for any tendency towards self-destruction among civilizations.

In short, I don't think the Drake Equation is a useful tool at all for telling us how many civilizations there may be. However, I do think it is a useful tool when used as intended, to debate the factors that give rise of civilizations in the galaxy. How does that make me a pseudoskeptic?


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Again you lie. I never said anything about Drake equation being law. Please quote me where I said Drake equation is law.

You do this silly nonsense in every thread you get on. You debate against a point that was never made.


You are right, you never explicitly said it was law. However, while it may not be what you said, your behavior is different. You have treated the Drake Equation as something it is not...


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Mathematically we can weigh the probability simply based on the billions of earth like planets, extremophiles, liquid water on Mars, amino acids in the dust clouds of comets and signs of microbial life on Mars.

You can do this by simply imputing new values into Drakes equation based on current knowledge.


And again here...


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Drake's equation is a helpful tool to look at the probability of extraterrestrial life based on new discoveries.


This shows you have been misappropriating it. It was never intended to give us the "probability" of intelligent life, but it is a tool for debate.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Many of these cases have been investigated for years and based on the available evidence you can draw a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely.


Now you're talking about UFOs when I never mentioned UFOs. Why are you debating points that were never made? Isn't that a sign of being a pseudoskeptic? You're not a pseudoskeptic are you?


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You have made your feelings known. You don't think you can weigh the probababilities. Other folks don't feel the same.


And everyone has a right to their opinion and debate that opinion.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
If uou don't feel you can weigh the probabilities and you said that, then what are you debating?


That very thing. That we cannot quantify these things yet. I think the probability is 1, we are not alone. However, I admit that is it is still impossible for us to know, yet.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Now can we please debate the subject at hand and not your pseudoskepticism.


Again, you are debating things no one brought up, Matrix Rising. You were the one who made the ad hominem attacks, accused me of being a pseudoskeptic and a liar. It was an uncalled for, unjustified attack, which you leveled for no other reason than partially disagreeing with you (the probability is impossible to weigh but I don't think we're alone), something you did not do to anyone else who expressed similar sentiments. If you want to have a civil and honest discussion, then that is up to you. Stop with the ad hominems, discuss things in a civil manner.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


You said:


You are right, you never explicitly said it was law. However, while it may not be what you said, your behavior is different. You have treated the Drake Equation as something it is not...


Of course you read something into it that I never said. This is what pseudoskeptics do. They try to debate against a point that was never made because they can't debate the issue.

The things I talked about were not conjecture and we can use reason to weigh the probabilities. Drake's equation is a good tool to weigh the probabilities of extraterrestrial civilizations. I already told you that I'm not trying to get an exact number, I'm just weighing the available evidence within reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

We do this in all walks of life.

If you can't weigh the probabilities, that's fine. Others can and they have throughout the thread. We have a ton of available evidence to weigh and people can come to these decisions on there own.

This is not a debate that asked can you weigh the probabilities. Did you read the title of the thread? If you don't think you can do this, then that's fine. What you are doing is trying to convince other people that they can't weigh the probabilities.

This is what pseudoskeptics do.

You came into the thread and said you can't weigh the probabilities. That's fine but others can. We don't need to here and debate why you can't weigh the probabilities. This thread isn't about that. Others can and we don't need to hear your pseudoskepticism as to why you can't.

The thread is not about debating Drake's equation
The thread is not about your pseudoskepticism
The thread is titled,"What's the probability of extraterrestrial life?" The thread is not titled "Can you weigh the probability of extraterrestrial life."

Others have plenty evidence to weigh and they have contributed to the thread.

If you can't weigh the evidence, then what's your point in this thread? You already said you can't and that's fine. We are not on this thread to debate why you can't.

So again, you already said you can't weigh the evidence. This thread is for people that can weigh the evidence and what kinds of conclusions they have reached.

If you want to debate the question, can you debate the probability of extraterrestrial life, then start a thread.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

...We can look at the available evidence and weigh it as to what's the most likely explanation based on abduction cases, radar reports, mass sightings, trace evidence, videos, pictures and more.

Well, I'm talking about Drake's Equation. These things you listed have nothing to do with Drake's equation.

I think the question of "Is there life elsewhere in the universe?" is totally separate from "Are we being visited by extraterrestrials?"



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Of course you read something into it that I never said. This is what pseudoskeptics do. They try to debate against a point that was never made because they can't debate the issue.


Matrix, I posted your quotes were you were treating the Drake Equation as something other than what it was intended to be. There was no reading this. You were clear about what you think it to be. Now you are claiming you never did that.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Drake's equation is a good tool to weigh the probabilities of extraterrestrial civilizations. I already told you that I'm not trying to get an exact number...


Exact number or not, it is not a good tool because of reasons already discussed. And there you go misappropriating it again right after you claimed you were doing no such thing, and accusing me of "reading into" points you never made.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is not a debate that asked can you weigh the probabilities. Did you read the title of the thread? If you don't think you can do this, then that's fine.


And I am presenting a different point of view. There is nothing wrong with this.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What you are doing is trying to convince other people that they can't weigh the probabilities.

This is what pseudoskeptics do.


So, how does it make me a pseudoskeptic to present a point of view, debate and defend it? Isn't everyone else here doing the same thing?



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Others can and we don't need to hear your pseudoskepticism as to why you can't.


How is it pseudoskepticism?



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The thread is not about debating Drake's equation


I did not bring up the Drake Equation. That was done by someone else. I presented a point of view on the Drake Equation. Then you went on to misappropriate it.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The thread is not about your pseudoskepticism


Then stop making it about me. No one brought up pseudoskepticism but you. You are throwing it around as an ad hominem simply because I do not agree with your premise. You use it for anything you don't like. Someone disagrees, they are a pseudoskeptic. Someone defends a point of view, they are a pseudoskeptic. You Matrix Rising, were the only person to bring up pseudoskepticism. And you can't even tell us why I am a pseudoskeptic other than you don't like me.

Matrix Rising, you are the one who made the thread about those things. You are the one who resorted to ad hominems. You are the one who misappropriated the Drake Equation and attacked me, on a personal level, for not subscribing to you misappropriation.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
If you can't weigh the evidence, then what's your point in this thread? You already said you can't and that's fine. We are not on this thread to debate why you can't.


You are not a mod, Matrix Rising. You cannot tell others what to debate and what they cannot. If I want to present a point of view, debate and defend that point of view, within the context of the discussion (and it is within context).



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
So again, you already said you can't weigh the evidence.


I never said that. What I have said is that there is too much we don't know to draw any sort of conclusion. Now you are making up things and "reading into" what I have said. According to you...


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Of course you read something into it that I never said. This is what pseudoskeptics do. They try to debate against a point that was never made because they can't debate the issue.


Therefore, you must be a pseudoskeptic.


[edit on 29-11-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
well life is one thing, Tech intelligence is something else. This is the way i see life in our galaxy.

microbial life - probably very common
complex life (plants/animals)- less common
tech intelligence - very rare.

to many unknown variables in the drake equation to get an accurate result. All it takes is one variable to be close to zero or zero and tech intelligence is vanishingly rare.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


You can:


Matrix, I posted your quotes were you were treating the Drake Equation as something other than what it was intended to be. There was no reading this. You were clear about what you think it to be. Now you are claiming you never did that.


Post my quotes where I said Drake's equation was a law. Of course your debating a point that was never made. This is what pseudoskeptics do.

Secondly, if I want to weigh current discoveries in the context of Drake's equation and I want to weigh the evidence within reason, then I have reached the threshold to be able to weigh the probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe.

This is what the thread is about.

This is why I asked other people who can weigh the probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe to share their conclusions in the original post.

You were the only one that couldn't understand this.

You stated that you couldn't weigh the probability and that's fine. However, this is not a debate about wether you can weigh the probability or not.

People have reached the conclusion that they can based on the available evidence. Most people with half a brain can weigh the probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe based on the available evidence.

This is why people responded with the conclusions they reached. Again, you said you can't weigh the probabilities. It makes no sense, but it's your opinion. This is not a debate about you.

Again, anyone with half a brain can weigh the probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe and the more I think about it I want this debate even if it turns the thread into something it's not.

You look silly when you make these statements. I tried to hold back and steer the debate back to the original point but pseudoskeptics like yourself always wants to make the debate about them.

So let's make it about you and that illogical statement that you can't weigh the probabilities.

Anyone can weigh the probabilities based on the available evidence and only a blind pseudoskeptic will say you can't weigh the probability.

We weigh the available evidence in all walks of life as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

You have people debating the probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe all the time. This is simply what the thread was doing. It was looking at the available evidence and posting your conclusions. The only one that couldn't understand this is you.

You wanted to make the debate about can you weigh the probabilities. Like I said, most people understood the topic of the thread and they posted why they reached their conclusions.

Here's a ton of articles debating the probability of extraterrestrial life.


The bottom line is that rather than the probability for extraterrestrial intelligent life being 1 as Aczel claims, very conservatively from a naturalistic perspective it is much less than 10500 + 22 -1054 -100,000,000,000 -24,000,000. That is, it is less than 10-100,024,000,532. In longhand notation it would be 0.00 … 001 with 100,024,000,531 zeros between the decimal point and the 1.


www.reasons.org...

The Probability of Finding Extraterrestrial Life in the Milky Way


Abstract
In my computational science project, the question was asked, "What is the probability of finding extraterrestrial life?". The main equation to try to answer this question has already been developed, and it is the Drake Equation. The Drake Equation can give a close estimate of the number of advanced civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy. Part of this equation includes the probability of the right planet forming around the right type of star with the right conditions for life to develop. This was the part I tried to model. The probability includes several factors, such as star luminosity, the planet's size, the planet's density, the planet's gravity, and the velocity of the planet. These factors were multiplied together and graphed. I made nine graphs based on several different conditions, although many more could have been made. Basically, I graphed the possibility of finding planets with life that were approximately the size of Mars, Earth, and Jupiter, which were orbiting certain types of stars. These types of stars included the Class-G star, ( which is category Sol is placed in), the Class-M star, (which is larger than the sun, but has a surface temperature of about 2,000 K, where Sol has a temperature of 6,000 K), and the Class-A star, ( which is smaller than Sol and has a temperature of about 10,000 K). However, these graphs were to scale because of the enormous masses of planets. The mass of the planet should be multiplied by 1*1020 . The end results showed that there was an increase in the probability of finding a Jupiter-sized planet with life than the other tow planets. the graphs also showed that there was a greater probability of finding a planet with life around a Class-M star.


www.asms.net...


We think the probability of finding extraterrestrial life would be best on Earth-like planets.


www.nytimes.com...

Probability of alien life rises


To address this problem, Charles Lineweaver and Tamara Davis of the University of New South Wales in Sydney looked at the implications of the rapid beginning of life on Earth for the probability of it evolving elsewhere.


www.newscientist.com...

I can go on and on.

I tried to avoid this and keep the thread civil but pseudoskeptics make the silliest statements.

Of course you can weigh the probability based on the available evidence. We do this in all walks of life.

You just want to turn the thread into a silly debate about can we weigh the probability.

If you want to take it there, that's fine with me. You will just make yourself look silly like you do in other threads.

Anyone with half a brain knows the debate was about weighing the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely then stating your conclusions based on the probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe.

The debate was never about can we debate these probabilities. If you want to take it there though I'm willing to go there.

If you look at the post on this thread, people debated the issue. When it came to you, you wanted to let your pseudoskepticism shine and debate something else. If you want to walk over an illogical cliff, I'm willing to provide the push yet again.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


we havnt found any earth like planets yet. The question is how common will they be? Its difficult to answer that question only direct observations will give us the answer.

.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Just to put things in perspective: There are cca 10^22 stars only in the observable part of the universe.
We dont know exactly what is the probability of life appearing around at least one planet in a star system, but it is probably far more than 10^-22.. Some parameters of drake equation are just wild guesses, but worst estimates I have heard of are around 10^-15. That equates to 10 000 000 civs in the observable universe. Well, I think its far more than that.


[edit on 29-11-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Yes, we have found an earth like planets close to home.


Most Earthlike Planet Yet Found May Have Liquid Oceans

It probably wouldn't feel exactly like home. But the planet known as Gliese 581d has a lot more in common with Earth than astronomers first thought.

New measurements of the planet's orbit place it firmly in a region where conditions would be right for liquid water, and thus life as we know it, astronomer Michel Mayor, from Geneva University in Switzerland, announced today.

"It lies in the [life-supporting] habitable zone, and it could have an ocean at its surface," Mayor said during the European Week of Astronomy and Space Science conference, being held this week at the University of Hertfordshire in the U.K.

First discovered in 2007, Gliese 581d was originally calculated to be too far away from its host star—and therefore too cold—to support an ocean.

But Mayor and colleagues now show that the extrasolar planet, or exoplanet, orbits its host in 66.8 days, putting it just inside the cool star's habitable zone.

At the same time, Mayor and colleagues announced that they have spotted a fourth planet orbiting in the Gliese 581 star system—and it's the lightest exoplanet found so far.


news.nationalgeographic.com...


Dozens of "Earth Like Planets Discovered Outside Solar System

WASHINGTON — European astronomers have found 32 new planets outside our solar system, adding evidence to the theory that the universe has many places where life could develop. Scientists using the European Southern Observatory telescope didn't find any planets quite the size of Earth or any that seemed habitable or even unusual. But their announcement increased the number of planets discovered outside the solar system to more than 400.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

Here's a list of exoplanets.

Exoplanet Habitable Zone Candidates

www.planetarybiology.com...

[edit on 29-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


the terminology used by exoplanet hunters is as follows.

"earth-like planet" - between 0.75 - 2 earth mass with o2/nitrogen/co2 atmosphere. Located in the HZ of a star. E.G Earth

"terrestrial planet - Small rocky world up to 2 earth mass any distance from star, Earth, Mars, mercury, venus are all terrestrial planets.

"super earth"- 2 -10 earth mass. In any orbit aroudn a star. Gliese 581d is a super earth at 8 earth mass.. Likely to have a cloud deck several miles thick no sunlight will reach the surface. It will also be tidally locked to the star one side always facing its host star. Not close to being earth-like.

The best we can do in the next few years is find terrestrial planets in the HZ with kepler . It wont tell us if they are truely "earth-like" (habitable). It will take the next generation of planet finding telescopes to deliver that info.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
100% Obviously. The universe is infinite. Which means no matter how rare, there is an endless about of chances, which makes it 100%.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join