A New Estimate of Alien Life in Our Galaxy

a reply to: Irishhaf

Well no. I was responding to the implication that there was some god or deity behind the creation of the universe.

I disagree with the claim in the thread that there is (a god). That’s my position. I disagree as there is no evidence and that the number of civilisations that may be out there has nothing to do with whatever else a non-proved god may or may not have created.

- You (not literallly you but the generic everyone) claim there is a god that created the universe and other nonhuman beings
- I say prove it wit evidence
- You cannot.
- So I don’t believe you

Why do I have to prove the negation?

Like my previous example, I claim you killed X. You say, no i didn’t, can you prove it? I say, nope, not my job to prove you did it - it’s your job to prove you DIDNT do it.

That isn’t how our courts of law work. Why is the focus for You to prove your innocence when I have no evidence ? makes no sense at all. Otherwise, anyone can make any claim they want as fact.

Which, ironically is how religion works

originally posted by: Jay-morris

So, we should have all the answers to the universe right?

I am saying we should ditch theories that aren't empirically evidence

We know there are around 100 billion galaxies in the universe, which means billions of stars and planets.

We do not know such a thing. There has yet to be a photograph of an exoplanet beyond our solar system.

a reply to: cooperton

I am saying we should ditch theories that aren't empirically evidence

That is absolute rubbish! Are you saying we have no other evidence of other galaxies in the universe? I cannot believe what I am hearing here.

We do not know such a thing. There has yet to be a photograph of an exoplanet beyond our solar system.

We do have evidence of exoplanets. Because they are not photographs that you can clearly see, does not mean they are not there.

Extrasolar planets have been directly observed, acting tbe same way planets do in out solor system, and you think this is not evidence because we do not have a close up photo.

Funny how you bring up "evidence" when there is absolutly no evidence of a God, but you believe it anyway.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

That is absolute rubbish! Are you saying we have no other evidence of other galaxies in the universe? I cannot believe what I am hearing here.

We've never been to one, you are taking it on faith that there is some sort of terra-firma planet out there.

We do have evidence of exoplanets. Because they are not photographs that you can clearly see, does not mean they are not there.

Faith is the act of believing without seeing. Your faith is commendable.

Extrasolar planets have been directly observed, acting tbe same way planets do in out solor system, and you think this is not evidence because we do not have a close up photo.

Any photo at all would do. A real photo, not CGI. otherwise you are left to faith.

Funny how you bring up "evidence" when there is absolutly no evidence of a God, but you believe it anyway.

Seems odd you have to resort to attacking my beliefs to defend your own. That's not the category we are discussing, otherwise I would love to defend the things I know with concrete verifiable facts. You on the other hand, rely solely on theorists to dictate to you what you should believe without any empirical evidence to support your assertions.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: cooperton

I am saying we should ditch theories that aren't empirically evidence

That is absolute rubbish! Are you saying we have no other evidence of other galaxies in the universe? I cannot believe what I am hearing here.

We do not know such a thing. There has yet to be a photograph of an exoplanet beyond our solar system.

We do have evidence of exoplanets. Because they are not photographs that you can clearly see, does not mean they are not there.

Extrasolar planets have been directly observed, acting tbe same way planets do in out solor system, and you think this is not evidence because we do not have a close up photo.

Funny how you bring up "evidence" when there is absolutly no evidence of a God, but you believe it anyway.

Actually there is evidence, only you can't or refuse to see it. And also there is another facet of this. Those who know and love God do often receive "evidence" of his existence. This is a personal and an individual basis of personal based revelation.

No matter what science achieves, it will never be able to save you from 2 different possible deaths. So even if science was given absolute proof, what purpose would it serve you if you already reject the existence of God now?

Worshiping science alone as some sort of figurative "god" will not help anyone overcome evil. It only teaches people to reject God. See how that works out for you when you get to the next life (after physical death). There is still time as long as you are alive.

a reply to: cooperton

We've never been to one, you are taking it on faith that there is some sort of terra-firma planet out there.

But we clearly have evidence of of exoplanets. Are you saying the only evidence should be a clear photo?

Faith is the act of believing without seeing. Your faith is commendable.

So, the photos we have of other galaxies are not real? What are they then?

Any photo at all would do. A real photo, not CGI. otherwise you are left to faith.

We do not have the technology at the moment for that, and you know it, but you also should know we have other ways to see for example other planets.

Seems odd you have to resort to attacking my beliefs to defend your own. That's not the category we are discussing, otherwise I would love to defend the things I know with concrete verifiable facts.

You would lose that argument

You on the other hand, rely solely on theorists to dictate to you what you should believe without any empirical evidence to support your assertions.

You are basing this on the fact that you believe in a God. And it sounds like you are a fanatical believer of God. The worst kind!

originally posted by: Jay-morris
But we clearly have evidence of of exoplanets. Are you saying the only evidence should be a clear photo?

What is the clear evidence to support the existence of exoplanets? Show and tell.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jay-morris
But we clearly have evidence of of exoplanets. Are you saying the only evidence should be a clear photo?

What is the clear evidence to support the existence of exoplanets? Show and tell.

I seriously cannot believe I have to do this!

There are a few ways we detect exoplanets.

Color-Shifting Stars: The Radial-Velocity Method.

Exoplanets and their stars pull on each other. We can’t see the exoplanet, but we can see the star move. The star’s motion makes its light bluer and redder as seen from Earth.

Down in Front!: The Transit Photometry Method

When an exoplanet passes in front of its star, we can't see the planet, but we can see the starlight dim. Repeat transits tell us an exoplanet's orbit size and shape.

Space-Warping Planets: The Microlensing Method

Star gravity makes space bend near it. When a star passes in front of another star, it bends the distant starlight like a lens, making it brighter. If the lensing star has an exoplanet, it acts like another lens, making the star even brighter.

Wobbly Stars: The Astrometry Method

Exoplanets and their stars pull on each other. We can’t see the exoplanet, but we can see the star move. The star’s motion compared to other stars shows that an exoplanet exists.

Fireflies Next to Spotlights: The Direct Imaging Method

In some cases, we can actually see exoplanets next to their host stars and track their orbits.

Timing Variations

Unseen planets can make themselves known by the gravitational tugs they exert on other planets and stars. These tugs cause variations in the timing of predictable events. By observing timing variations, astronomers can infer the presence of another world.

Phase Curves

Even if exoplanets don’t pass in front of their host stars as seen from Earth, they can still cause detectable variations in a star’s apparent brightness, with the combined brightness of star and planet changing over the course of the planet’s orbit.

As we know how planets react in our own solar system, how they orbit and how gravity is effected, it makes it easier for us to detect planets outside of our solid system.

But, of course, this will make no difference.

I don't think we have to question anymore if other life exists out there in the vast Universe. Just the sheer numbers and the fact we exist as an example. Look how much life is on just this planet. Out of all of the chaos in the universe those elements came together to form what we see today. The question is, how many planets are the same and life like us are out there and how many are sentient. Some may be even older than us and traveling among the stars already. We could very well be monitored by a highly more advanced race stopping by Earth once in a while. We take things for granted. Tree's and plant life, water etc is what is rare and sought after. The Earth is prized jewel indeed. It would be no surprise that they would come here for those types of resources. You kill off a species of plant life it is gone forever. Not like a gold nugget that can be processed and refined over and over.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
I seriously cannot believe I have to do this!

As if you knew... you just googled it and are reiterating what you saw on planetary.org ... Which is fine, but just kinda lame that you say it so condescendingly, as if its common knowledge. Regardless, Let's go one by one.

There are a few ways we detect exoplanets.

Color-Shifting Stars: The Radial-Velocity Method.

Exoplanets and their stars pull on each other. We can’t see the exoplanet, but we can see the star move. The star’s motion makes its light bluer and redder as seen from Earth.

Or stars oscillate, as you would expect since they are twinkling all the time. These sinusoidal patterns could be due to a whole host of things, yet to assume it is an exoplanet is an assumption that doesn't have the pictures to back it up.

Down in Front!: The Transit Photometry Method

When an exoplanet passes in front of its star, we can't see the planet, but we can see the starlight dim. Repeat transits tell us an exoplanet's orbit size and shape.

I would raise this same question for the prior method... How would such consistent patterns emerge if the star being observed were in fact a sun with planets orbiting all around while the whole solar system is whizzing around a galactic arm at unfathomable speeds??? Not to mention we ourselves are theorized to be doing the same hyperspeed motion around a galactic arm. The fact that any consistent sort of dimming and brightening can be witnessed is more of a testament to oscillations in the radiative light coming from the stars... an intrinsic property that would not insist upon the existence of an exoplanet.

Space-Warping Planets: The Microlensing Method

Star gravity makes space bend near it. When a star passes in front of another star, it bends the distant starlight like a lens, making it brighter. If the lensing star has an exoplanet, it acts like another lens, making the star even brighter.

Again, the same assumption based on the first two speculations. A star has oscillating bright and dim patterns - therefore it must be an exoplanet? If that is the extent of your evidence, then I commend your faith even more.

Wobbly Stars: The Astrometry Method

Exoplanets and their stars pull on each other. We can’t see the exoplanet, but we can see the star move. The star’s motion compared to other stars shows that an exoplanet exists.

Again, a wobble would be explainable by oscillations that don't necessarily have to be an exoplanet. If it were due to a planet revolving around the star, then it would be much less predictable due to its constantly changing coordinate in the galactic plane compared to ours. It would be like expecting a golf ball to be twirling around the cup ad-infinitum, on all 18 holes of a golf course. It doesn't happen that way. If anything, this insists that it is a radiating property that involves various oscillations and patterns that are intrinsic to the star.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

1: The average number of stars to form per year in the galaxy.
2: The fraction of those stars that form planets.
3: The fraction of those planets that could support life.
4: The fraction of life-supporting planets that form life.
5: The fraction of those living planets that develop intelligent life forms.
6: The fraction of those intelligent life forms that develop technology.
7: The average lifetime of a communicating species; in other words how long a civilisation will use radio technology, leaking signals into space for us to hear.

We only really have a reasonable amount of knowledge on #1. The rest we don't even know enough to make an educated guess.

Now I know they used "different" standards in this new study, but it's just a variation on a them. They use factors that we have no idea how to even realistically estimate to do a calculation. The result is going to be useless.

a reply to: cooperton

Until there is a photograph of a planet outside our solar system, it requires your faith to believe it.

I’m no astrophysicist but is that how it works?

Good luck working your way back from nauseating declarations of empirical evidence to requiring a photograph of a black hole — they are out there — such that faith is no longer a requisite criterion.

And about those equations (formulas) you are declare need to be ‘fitted’, care to show your math? Or is this some obtuse, blind faith fanaticism, plaguing 21st century astrophysicists with nothing else to figure out using empirical evidence?

Again, I’m no astrophysicist, but an a priori deduction suggests to me the evidence comes first...the “empirical“ part of that term/phrase being a redundancy in the context in which you are clamoring for finer tuned measuring instruments (e.g. observational outcomes).

What you’re doing in this thread is talking out of both sides of your mouth — blind believes have an insidious propensity for such rhetorical exercises.

Please show your math and do not be dismayed by not receiving partial credit*.

*Partial credit will be given for partial derivatives particularly, if you can enumerate the possible values of the LagrangIan in a simply 3-body context.

originally posted by: Cravens

I’m no astrophysicist but is that how it works?

No, it's not. There is pretty conclusive evidence that planets exist outside our solar system.

Not to mention, a photograph of one would not be any more convincing than the abundant data that's been gathered. If the data can be faked, so can a photograph.

ETA: Also, exoplanets have been photographed.

a reply to: face23785

Yeah, from one non-astrophysicist to another, I was aware of the “pretty conclusive evidence”, but I had hoped the poster would have taken a swing at it.

Now, the ability to fake a photograph is news me, got any evidence faking a photograph can be done? Any pretty conclusive evidence photographs can be faked?

Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: sean
I don't think we have to question anymore if other life exists out there in the vast Universe. Just the sheer numbers and the fact we exist as an example. Look how much life is on just this planet.

Unfortunately you don't understand statistics and probability. To be accurate for prediction you need a large enough sample. When it comes to life on planets or other celestial bodies we have a very small sample of Earth, the objects in our solar system, and those exoplanets we've discovered. The sample continues to grow, but so far out of those thousands of objects, we only know of one that for sure has life. Earth. Not very promising.

Then what we would ordinarily do is look at how life came to be on Earth and then extrapolate that outward to get an estimate of potential life elsewhere. Unfortunately we have no fricking idea how life came to be on Earth. We have some theories, but nothing definite. So without knowing that, there's no way to accurately calculate how many times it could have happened elsewhere.

And the kicker is that there's no law or guarantee that it even did or will happen elsewhere. For the number of times it could happen again, the lower limit is still zero. That's the lowest possible valid number you can get from the Drake Equation. The more we learn about how big and hostile space really is (insanely big and hostile), the less likely it becomes.

So it becomes an either / or proposition. We can fantasize all we want, but the only way to prove there is other life out there is to find unequivocal evidence of it. So far, though, statistically and rationally, we're the only game in town.

Funny thing is, there are a lot of people who wish there were cool aliens to see an take us on wonderful trips to view colorful sunsets on distant planets, but they've never even interacted with their own neighbors and can't bother to move their own fat asses off the couch to view any of the hundreds of beautiful sunsets on their own planet.

originally posted by: Cravens

And about those equations (formulas) you are declare need to be ‘fitted’, care to show your math? Or is this some obtuse, blind faith fanaticism, plaguing 21st century astrophysicists with nothing else to figure out using empirical evidence?

Dark matter is a hypothetical substance. They hypothesize it exists because they need to in order to fit the formula. The equations only work if you assume there is matter that exists that is undetectable. It is literally asking you to just believe in invisible matter. the 'dark' in 'dark matter' is referring to the fact it has never been detected.

Again, I’m no astrophysicist, but an a priori deduction suggests to me the evidence comes first

Exactly, which is why the necessity of dark matter sets off my b.s. meter... if the equations don't work, you can't just include some imaginary invisible form of matter for them to fit. Obviously the whole structure needs reconfigured. All assumptions that aren't based in lucid empirical data need to be removed to be able to see clearly again.

blind believes have an insidious propensity for such rhetorical exercises.

I can back up everything I believe with logical deduction and observable examples. My mind wouldn't allow it any other way.

Please show your math and do not be dismayed by not receiving partial credit*.

Scientists have already done the math. They estimate that normal matter accounts for 5% of all matter, whereas a hypothetical existence of dark matter and dark energy must comprise the remaining 95% in order for the formulas to make sense. Don't you see how absurd that is? They are relying on undetectable invisible matter that likely doesn't even exist to complete their equations (and they've been wasting our tax dollars trying to prove it for almost 100 years)

originally posted by: cooperton
Or stars oscillate, as you would expect since they are twinkling all the time.

You might want to Google why stars twinkle...

originally posted by: face23785

You might want to Google why stars twinkle...

Yes our atmosphere is highly distortive... All the more reason we can't assume bright and dim oscillations of stars must be orbiting exoplanets.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: face23785

You might want to Google why stars twinkle...

Yes our atmosphere is highly distortive... All the more reason we can't assume bright and dim oscillations of stars must be orbiting exoplanets.

You realize we've had the technology to compensate for that with ground-based telescopes for like 2 decades right? We also have space-based telescopes that can confirm the compensation is accurate.

ETA: And that still doesn't explain how you thought stars twinkle because they're oscillating.

originally posted by: face23785

ETA: And that still doesn't explain how you thought stars twinkle because they're oscillating.

A twinkle is a textbook oscillation. The bright and dim moments oscillate between one another. You're arguing semantics because you are avoiding the fact that these theories require dark energy and matter to exist because their equations are off by 95%