It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Mathematically There is Zero Life in The Universe.

page: 1
6
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:32 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but,

There are anywhere from 200 to 400 Billion Stars in our Galaxy alone. Each of these stars has the possibility of having Planets revolving around them.

There are approx 80 Billion Galaxies in the observable universe.
In all The observable universe contains about 3 to 7 × 1022 stars (30 to 70 sextillion stars) Each of these stars again, capable of orbiting planets.

If we are to believe that Planet Earth is the only planet with life on it, intelligent or not (which many people still do) then by rounding off to the nearest whole number which would be rounding down, we we would be forced to arrive at zero.

There is ZERO life in the universe...this means you!!!

So next time you are having the discussion of whether or not there is life in the universe you can tell them no, not even on planet Earth.

I have added this Quote from the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy posted by Pazcat which summarizes what it is I am trying unsuccessfully to get across

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by The Lord and Savior]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:34 PM
reply to post by The Lord and Savior

How did you do the calculation to arrive at the number that you rounded to zero? Maybe I'm just blind, but I didn't see the equation. /Very interesting!

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:37 PM
When you round 1 to the nearest integer (Whole number) you get 1; unless I am missing something here.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:37 PM
One (1) is a whole number.

Where in your calculation did you get a part number?

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:43 PM
This IS a joke, right?

We just haven't DISCOVERED other life yet. So since we only know of one planet with life, then yeah, you could go by a technicality here.

But that's all it is - it's a technicality.

There IS life out there - and it's not even about faith anymore. It's about sheer math, without using any silly technicalities.

Nice try, though!

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by The Lord and Savior

There is ZERO life in the universe...this means you!!!

So next time you are having the discussion of whether or not there is life in the universe you can tell them no, not even on planet Earth.

the problem is
we don't generally round numbers when were talking about science and precision

However the scarcity of life from our perspective is an illusion IMO. Theres life out there we just can't

a. detect it with our tech
b. recognize it as life because its not carbon based
c.contact it because we're really primitive on a universal scale. We can barely get off our own rock

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:44 PM
We would be something on the order of .01 [to the 200th] but with a few sextillion more o's thrown in if you were to assume that even a small fraction of the amount of stars in our observable universe had orbiting planets.

edited out 223 0's - stretching page

[edit on 6/1/10 by masqua]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:47 PM
I agree that there is absolutely life elsewherein the Universe but if there are silly people out there who want to believe that there isn't then they would have to admitt they they don't exist either.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:50 PM
reply to post by The Lord and Savior

Nope, you're still not making any sense to me. All you've said is: "There is a really high possibility of other planets harbouring life, oh and guess what 1 =0"

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:57 PM
Our planet is not the only "1" in the universe. It is .0000000sextillions1 of the whole.

Where there would be countless sextillions of planets in the Universe, our Earth would be a small fraction of THOSE planets. If we are to believe that, of all of the planets out there of which our own planet Earth is mearly a infintessimally small fraction of all combined planets then one would have to round .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 down to 0

I can't explain it any clearer than that I'm afraid.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:09 PM
reply to post by The Lord and Savior

Wrong : 1 != 0

If there is life , there is not 0 life.

In percentage you are right : but that is bad math : in statistics this is more complex.

You being here give you the probability of life being here : 1

But in order to calculate life everywhere you need a lot more data , and caculus.

But with simple math : we are made of void : so we are void : we are made of water so we are water.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by psychederic]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:11 PM
I am not sure how you came up with this theory.

I would think it would be the opposite!

[edit on 6-1-2010 by kommunist]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:12 PM

Originally posted by The Lord and Savior
There is ZERO life in the universe...this means you!!!

So next time you are having the discussion of whether or not there is life in the universe you can tell them no, not even on planet Earth.

Well, mathematics is just a symbolic representation of reality, not reality itself. You can tell this because there are no people - no observers or movers - in math, just numbers that somehow magically arrange themselves into patterns.

I like to think that as far as the universe and life are concerned, the universe trends toward having zero life. At least as we understand it at the present. Exactly how small that fraction is that has life (Earth) has yet to really be determined. Maybe there is other life elsewhere. Maybe the universe (aside from the big, empty spaces) is just crawling with life. Nobody knows for sure.

I think, therefore I am, so I exist. And so the universe exists. I don't have any good proof about anything else.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by kommunist
I am not sure how you came up with this theory.

I would think it would be the opposite!

[edit on 6-1-2010 by kommunist]

Agreed.

As far as I am concerned... life on this planet, both intelligent and non-intelligent, is proof enough that there is the same elsewhere.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:50 PM
I have read Hitch Hiker's guide to the galaxy too.
You just dressed it up a little.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

Oh and to who ever screwed up the page size.
DON'T DO IT AGAIN!

[edit on 6-1-2010 by pazcat]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:02 PM

Originally posted by kommunist
I am not sure how you came up with this theory.

I would think it would be the opposite!

[edit on 6-1-2010 by kommunist]

he didnt came up with anything

he is just using math to describe the ignorance of some people

its a fact
so, its impossible to not exist life in some other planet

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:06 PM
Ehh, im a little sketchy about this, but then again we CAN assume that there is life at other planets.

So there must be about 1% of life in the universe

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:16 PM
Explanation: S&F!

I have had these discussions with my dad. He was an IT expert at the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Statistics has some funny rules that lead to weird things like "1+1=3" for "extremely large values of 1"!
:shk:

It all comes down to the fudge factor of "averages" and not EXPLICITLY stating the "error of probable/estimated uncertainty"!

Personal Disclosure: IMO set theory works best.

So we have 1 set called the universe and it, at the least contains ONE lifeform i.e. Humanity! This is 100% positive result i.e 1 even when averaged out!

Or we have 1 Global set called the universe and it has at least 3 to 7 × 10^22 local sets [based on No# of Sta*rs!] and only 1 of these sets is KNOWN to contain at least ONE lifeform i.e. Humanity!
The result of this is that when all the local states are averaged out that we end up with 1/(3 to 7 × 10^22) probability of finding life inside any one of the 3 to 7 × 10^22 local sets! This number gets rounded according to the required amount of significant digits required by the Global set [in this case a whole integer] and as the result is less than 0.5 it gets rounded to ZER0! The actual odds for the "error of probable/estimatated uncertainty" are (3 to 7 × 10^22) to 1 for being wrong when taking any one random local set and defining its state as the actual Global sets REAL value! [See my 1st example of the most valid way to veiw things ACCURATELY in this particular specific case!]

P.S. Lies, Damn Lies AND Statistics!

Edited to add brackets and bold for clarity and emphasis.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by OmegaLogos]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:23 PM
I see where you're coming from. The reason your post is so hard to understand is because you are basically satirizing the "logic" of those who say, "There can't be life elsewhere."

[edit on 6-1-2010 by SpeakerofTruth]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:25 PM

Originally posted by The Lord and Savior
then by rounding off to the nearest whole number which would be rounding down, we we would be forced to arrive at zero.

huh... you can't do that

This is like the worst math I have ever seen. What are you trying to prove ?

if your trying to figure out the probability of life on other planets your doing it wrong and NO WAY should be rounding down to the nearest whole number.

Like your not even close to correct.

We know for a fact (no matter how bad your math is) your answer needs to be a positive ... you know ,.. because we are here, alive and all that ...

[edit on 6-1-2010 by nophun]

new topics

top topics

6