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.
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.
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:
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.
# 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
"The next question is why haven't they visited us?" And the answer? "I don't know," Borucki said.
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.
Originally posted by Deebo
Wow the Gov. disinfo agent's always get here quick. So easy to spot too.
Deebo
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:
p(L)=[p(a)*p(b)*p(c)*p(d)*p(e)…]
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
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.