It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


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


There are 500 million planets in OUR OWN GALAXY capable of producing life

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by Electric Crown

You're posting on the largest CONSPIRACY THEORIST message board on the internet, and you're mad because someone posted about their belief that our planet is being visited by aliens in a thread discussing the possibility of life existing elsewhere in our own galaxy?

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Tephra
We know there are numerous planets with life, and likely several with intelligent life. The problem really is that we as a species are a misguided bunch. We don't seek these things, we seek celebrities, and makeup, and war...

Humanity has to find the answers to propulsion, and shielding, or we will be extinct.

I'm sure they are out there, perhaps even amongst us. We were created in the image of the Gods, and the Sons of the Gods saw the daughters of men were fair, and took their want. Abduction? To them we must be like rats in a cage, fun to watch, but don't let them out!
As for propulsion and shielding, even if we had them, I don't think they'd let us get out of the solar system. Who could blame them?

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:55 PM
Wow the Gov. disinfo agent's always get here quick. So easy to spot too.


posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:52 AM
reply to post by iversusvsversusi

If I read this post about a year ago I'd completely and utterly agree with you. However, I can't help now a days but think technological advance is natural (i will provide more in depth discussion if necessary).

Biological anthropology is a fascinating field, which is why I'm studying it here as an undergrad at the university of pennsylvania. I hope to learn more and help ATS better understand humans. Because according to the response from my last post... we don't, yet.
edit on 2/21/2011 by Schmidt1989 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:59 AM
reply to post by hotrice

Yes yes, we know this information already... There are probably billions of worlds out there in the vastness of the Universe...

The probable fact is that no matter how advanced we or E.T. becomes Space------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Will probably be the frontier no race can conquer, even travelling at the Speed of Light which unless we can figure out a way to change the properties of matter without >destroying< the matter in the process... , the distances are implausible to life as we know it...

Also wouldn't an Atom sped up to the Speed of light take on infinite MASS?

So where are they? They are stuck in their corner of the Universe! Just like we are, it doesn't matter what level of technology we or they are either, because as we know, to be able to cover the distances in Space you'd need to be capable of travelling at infinite speed, [because what purpose would it be to leave YOUR world for what ever reason, knowing that it won't exist if you tried to get back to it...] and we know that you can't travel at infinite speed because you would need an infinite source of energy, which won't work because that energy would never be able to equal the infinite mass your ship would aquire to keep travelling at infinite speed, because infinite speed would require infnite energy... heh heh

edit on 2/21/2011 by Brainiac because: the infinite limit...

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:08 AM
There are two main things that concern me about this whole ideal.

Number one: The conditions for life (as we know it) are very complex and numerous.
Number two: We only know the conditions required for life that we have observed i.e. what about life that isn't carbon based? Silicon-based? What ARE the condtions required for life? Do we really know?

To the OP:
From what I understand, this is an estimate of planets within the "goldilocks zone". That doesn't necessarily mean all the conditions required for life (as we know it) to exist are present. It only means they are possible.

Another thing is, what if we're overlooking stuff that is present that allows life to exist. I am convinced that we do NOT know ALL of the prerequisites of life.

In THEORY, life can exist pretty much anywhere.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean it does. There is always the possibility that we are alone. Then again, there is the possiblity that we are NOT alone. These possiblities remain equal until one is proven. (It's like sports games, sometimes the underdog actually wins. You don't know until it's over.)

It is arrogant to take a stand on either side of the fence with this(for the aforementioned reasons). Bet on your team, but it doesn't mean you're going to win.


posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Goldilocks zone, Life similar to our own... They didn't even put into the equation "Alien" life... hah

So your Silicon/Carbon based question was answered.

This is of interest to us. Scientists say, "What other life exists"

We can only reason within our common references... hah

edit on 2/21/2011 by Brainiac because: Life elsewhere...

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:19 AM
I have to agree with the poster above on this one... (Agree2Disagree))

The goldilocks zone is where the arrogant people assume life can only possibly exist... yet on our own planet, we have nuerous places where we have found life that humans could not survive at all.
Our prerequisits for life are not uniform throughout space, nor is there a set law of how life can or should exist.

Anyone that thinks so needs their heads testing.

We no nothing of life in space, we have hardly scratched the surfance of life on our own planet.
edit on 21-2-2011 by jdmjam because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:21 AM
Lets see. What we have is an 'estimate' of planets that 'might' be 'capable' of sustaining 'life'.

Which means what exactly? Even if you took the theory of evolution and big bangs and stuff, what does this 'estimate' of capability' actually mean for us? It's an interesting statement but what benefit to anyone on earth for the next 1 billion years will that statement bring? Apaprently we can't even get to our own moon in reality if you listen to ATS conspirators.

Its just a question?

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:21 AM
reply to post by Brainiac

I'm not sure if you understood the message I was trying to convey.

The point I'm making is that this "discovery" is no real discovery at all.

It takes more than just being in the habitable zone to produce life.
We don't even know what it DOES take to produce life so how the hell are we going to find it?

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Solomons
Well i personally think the universe is packed with life, but complex life is rare and intelligent life like ourselves even rarer...but given the size of the universe rare is still a lot. Of course people shouldn't be silly enough to somehow link this information to aliens in spaceships zooming about earth.
This is probably one of the best posts in the thread, it's very logical. While we don't have any facts or statistics on other life forms, the only facts and statistics we do have regard life on Earth. We don't know how typical or atypical we are, but it's all we've got. Some things to note:

Intelligent life has been extremely rare on Earth. For the vast majority of Earth's 4.5 billion year history, there has been no intelligent life.

Intelligence may not be an inevitable evolutionary trait. Dinosaurs were on Earth far longer than man and we have no evidence they ever developed any technology.

I also note people are very excited about these numbers, but as Yeti said, they are actually a little disappointing because they are smaller than some expected. I have also seen little discussion about whether these planets in the habitable zone are gaseous or rocky planets.

Another reason we can't get too excited about many other forms of intelligent life is the Fermi Paradox, which is this: If the galaxy is teeming with intelligent life, where is everybody? This site discusses a number of possible solutions to the Fermi paradox:

Possible answers to the Fermi paradox

# In general, solutions to Fermi's paradox come down to: Life is difficult to start and to evolve to an intelligent and technologically advanced stage and we're the only one in the galaxy.
# Advanced civilizations destroy themselves on short timescales.

As the revised Drake equation solution (N

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:30 AM
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

I think they should have tried to explain instead that the Goldilocks zone "possibly" exists for X ammout of planets, so there for; life possibly as we know it"should" be able to exist....

Its all guesswork at the end of the day.

Plus we are assuming that what we are being told is the truth in the first instance anyway.
edit on 21-2-2011 by jdmjam because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:25 AM

"The next question is why haven't they visited us?" And the answer? "I don't know," Borucki said.

Mr Borucki: You are a "little" confused and really but really distracted!

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:16 AM

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Versa

yep, and out those 54 only 5 are near earth size. Everytime we look for an earth we get a neptune.

early numbers indicate approx 3% of stars will have an earth-sized planet in the HZ. Thats pretty bad really if were looking for anything interesting close by.

The current "state of the art" for planet searching favours the larger planets that orbits close to their star. Smaller planets with longer orbits are just more difficult to detect with the tools at our disposal. This slants the results somewhat but it does not mean that it is representative for actual distribution of planet sizes and orbits.

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:22 AM
reply to post by Versa

You have come up with this conclusion based upon what you only know, seen and experienced. Granted, thats a perfectly summed up conclusion, but non the less it is a biased one at best.
In the tanks of nuclear reactors. Tanks that have never been cleaned, nor opened. They found micro organisms living and breeding.
They are no where near the complex life that we are eagerly searching, but non the less... A life form was created outside the conditions that we are familiar with.

You are limiting your mind, as well as your understanding of the bigger schemes of things. Life can reside outside of the "comforts" we are only familiar with.
You're limiting the grand beauty and scale of the cosmos.

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:43 AM

Originally posted by Deebo
Wow the Gov. disinfo agent's always get here quick. So easy to spot too.


So, why does the government get its nasa scientists to spread the news and then sends other government employees to go and discredit it?

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by mrphilosophias aka M.F. Alexander
Possible implications of the discovery of extraterrestrial life in the biological evolution debate.
While we can speculate upon Drake, his opponents, and the many believers, seekers of extraterrestrial life, and contrary to modern scientists who are optimistic about certain “Earth-like planets,” as of the moment disclosure of knowledge of extra-terrestrial life has not occurred. However, even if we were to discover sound evidences of alien life forms, and especially intelligent alien life forms whose mental prowess is greater than our own, it would still not necessarily undermine such an argument as this one from precise regulation of critical variables with small margins of error. This is true in spite of a possible rebuttal in the spirit of the anthropic principle; if such a discovery were made it may be used to leverage credence to the idea that, yes it is statistically improbable that life should exist, but life does exist, and any discovery of other worldly life only exemplifies that these many precise variables actually coincide relatively frequently, conclusively citing the sheer amount of opportunity in a Universe which is “big”, and “old.” Exactly how is it that an ancient vast Universe somehow significantly increases the likelihood that all such critical variables would be precisely actualized, and at the time would coincide?
This is the sort of argument put forth by many scientists as to the possible implications that would follow from a discovery of extraterrestrial life forms, and how such a discovery would impact the debate on biological evolution. The logic seems sound; that when considered in light of the breadth of the immense Universe, and the Billions of years that it has been expanding, that a Universe hospitable to life, while being inconceivably improbable, had plenty of opportunity, to stumble upon these very specific and precise variables, for these variables to coincide, and to get things right for life to emerge. The logic continues that since the universe has all the time in the world to get it right, that it did, and ‘voila!’-anthropic principle!
Even if everything that can happen will happen, what necessitates that something as incredible as life ‘can happen’ in the first place? However this is not even the fatal error in the logic. If one considers the causal nature of the Universe, that all present moments are the culmination and result of all past-presents, and that all present moments are inextricably connected to, and dependent upon, some theoretical ‘first moment’, or in other words that every moment can be traced back to the big bang, then it begins to be clear that a Universe which is hospitable to life, which requires a very precise, particular, and improbable arrangement of coinciding variables, did not, as scientists like Dawkins suggests, have all the time in the world to come about by chance, but rather that the world had one chance to come about.
What are the implications of the serial and parallel nature of a causal Universe of space & time? If there is one Universe and it is an oscillating system, then it just so happens that the Universe that we all live in, and against inconceivable odds, somehow managed to stumble upon the winning cosmic lottery numbers, so to speak, and thankfully so or we would not be here to be considering such things! This is the case because the number of variables is inconceivable, and as one calculates the statistical probability of conditional variables, the overall probability of something occurring increases in relationship to the number, and probability, of the conditional variables. If there are, for example, five conditional variables that must be met, then to find the probability that this particular arrangement should happen, given an infinite number of tests, then one would calculate:
With this in mind it is easy to understand that the conditional probability that these five variables will coincide changes in relationship to the probability of each of the conditional variables occurring. Suppose then that we knew exactly how many conditions which are critical variables in the birth of a cosmos; the chain of events which would eventually lead, via causality and the ‘passing of time,’ to a Universe which is hospitable to life. Suppose also that we knew exactly what these variables were, and the probability that each of these variables should occur. With this information it would theoretically be possible to calculate the probability that a Universe like ours should exist. However, this is not the case and the number of critical variables is unknown and inconceivably innumerous.
If this were not reason enough to reject this reasoning consider that the probability that any one of these many variables should occur, out of all possibilities, is conceivably almost 0. Many of the critical variables for a Universe to be hospitable to life, when quantified, must have fallen precisely within a narrow margin of error as is discussed in the section on the probability of equilibrium, which is even more unlikely as even minute variations in any one of these critical parameters would be catastrophic to life. Given this, which seems evident enough, is it bold to propose that even if the Universe oscillated ∞ “iterations,” that the probability a Universe such as ours should transpire is still almost 0!
In a card game like black jack it is possible to calculate the probability of dealing a particular card out of all of the possible cards that can be dealt. For example: in a 52 card deck there are 13 of each suite, four suites, as well as four of each type of card. As cards are dealt the total number of cards left in the deck decreases, and the probability of drawing any one of the remaining cards will increase, as the cards that can possibly be drawn decreases.
The fundamental flaw in the idea that a Universe which is “big” and “old” is somehow more likely to eventually become hospitable to life can be illustrated as such: the Universe is not like cards, and it is an unfitting analogy, as the probability that the Universe should become hospitable to life cannot be calculated like cards in black jack. The Universe is not like a deck of a million cards, with each card representing a particular variable or arrangement of coinciding variables which manifest at any given moment, but this is how the analogy is expressed. This logic seems to suggest that every passing moment of expansion and change is like dealing a card in black jack, which would increase the probability of getting some remaining card. Let’s say then that the King of Hearts represents the coinciding of all variables necessary for the Universe to be hospitable to life, and for life to emerge. This logic implies that as time unfolds, it is like cards being dealt without being replaced, and that with enough time drawing the King of Hearts is inevitable.
If the Universe were like black jack than this may be well and true. However, the Universe is more like rolling dice. On a standard die there is an equal probability of 1/6 that you will get any one particular number. If you want the probability of rolling some number on the first try it is 1/6, and this probability will remain the same regardless of how many times you roll.
Copyright © 2011 Matthew F. Alexander

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:56 AM
reply to post by hotrice

WASHINGTON – Scientists have estimated the first cosmic census of planets in our galaxy and the numbers are astronomical: at least 50 billion planets in the Milky Way.
At least 500 million of those planets are in the not-too-hot, not-too-cold zone where life could exist. The numbers were extrapolated from ...

i heard on radio news something similar just last night(Sun 20 feb)

It went like this : One of every Two Stars harbor some type of planet...
and of those planets, One in every 200 might be in the Goldilocks Zone, not too hot or cold and just the
right size...

i don't recall that this form of a 'Drake Equasion' ever estimated the total number of distant "Earths"
out there to be in the 1/2 Billion population like your OP source reports

i still have a suspicion that whatever Life forms are on distant worlds...we already have or have had
here on Earth, especially including the totally weird creatures which experienced the several
mass extinction events during the Earth's 4 billion year history

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:15 AM
reply to post by Versa

Yet you dwindle these odds down to suggest we are the only species. YET WE ARE HERE. And that alone should put all discussion at ease. IF WE were able to do it, realize it, and explore... Why not elsewhere?
Your ego feeds you well...the earth does not revolve around the revolves around the human ego apparently.

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:35 AM

Originally posted by Versa

So far Kepler has found 1,235 candidate planets, with 54 in the Goldilocks zone, where life could possibly exist.

The planets would also have to have a number of other variables for it to harbour life, the planet would need to be the right size, made of rock, a magnetic shield, it would need an atmosphere, liquid water and so on.... This alone reduces the number of planets likely to have life.

The number is reduced again for 'complex life' and reduced again for 'intelligent life' there are 2 million plus forms of life on earth and only humans have discovered science. Therefore the odds of us finding intelligent life on another planet are very very small.... That's not to say its not out there just that the chances of us finding it any time soon is slim.

if a planet is within that safe zone the chances are it has water...if it has an iron core the chances are it has magnetic poles...given time even if it doesnt have one now the chances are that planet will have or form an atmosphere...these are things we know life needs...then take into account the possibility that different life forms may not need oxygen...or water...our bodies do..but what if another planet houses life that needs other elements..and that planet has them...and...the only reason chances of finding life out there are slim for us is because nobody wants to put enough money into space exploration.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in