Extraterrestrial Civilisations in our own Galaxy

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

A few things.

The Universe isn't 9 billion years old but 13.7 billion years old plus or minus a few hundred million years.

You might have a reading comprehension issue... I said "The universe as we see today is about 9 billion years old. Prior to that we are talking massive supernovas with really no planets and normal stars to get life going."

What this means is the universe spent billions of years in mostly a supernova state as 90 other natural elements were created too that makes up what the universe is today.

The age of our solar system is around 4.57 billion years and to have forgotten the other two planets in the habitable zone which may have had already sustained life earlier in their history. I am talking about Mars and Venus.

Still Mars and Venus could sustain microbial life at the moment we speak.

So I wasn't talking life in general, but advance life. Life in general is going to be all over the place, but advance life as I spelled out is most likely very rare.

Furthermore moons such as Europa could be placed where entire ecosystems can be found. Europa contains salty water underneath its icy surface. About 2-3 times the water here on Earth.

So good point, but what are the chances of advance life ever forming there? You seem to be mixing up my post as to say life in general and I was talking about advance ecosystems and not just any form of life.

There are about 100-2000 billion galaxies in the Universe and each one has on average around 100 billion stars and at least as many planets. Many of them in the habitable zones...

Ya so, two very determents to a species is time and distance. Species just can not deal with either very well. If we ever run into another race it will be in the form of self replicating AI that would be doing some mission maybe billions of years after their builders have come and gone. Life is most likely everywhere but species come and go in a blink of an eye.

You say about liguid core? Which one is the liguid core? Planets that can sustain life must have a metallic core with a solid inner core and a molten outer core so to produce a magnetic field according to the dynamo effect.

"Which one is the liquid core?" The liquid one... 100% solid and you get Mars...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Asmodeus3

What about the Fermi Paradox? Where are they? I think there's intelligent life out there too. But perhaps our methods of communication are incompatible. If they had the ability to detect us, why no attempt at communication?
If the tables were turned and we detected an alien civilization, would we attempt to communicate? After some research and investigation, I think we would.
Lots of questions, with no clear answers.

It's not a paradox though. It's a misguided view based on the lack of understanding of several variables. Not only the ones appear in the equation.

Let's say that humans are primitive technologically and not in the best position to make good predictions.

It's like filling a glass with sea water and then you conclude there is no life in the sea of any form as clearly there is nothing much in your glass apart from microorganisms you won't be able to see unless you have a microscope.

I don't think the paradox says there's no life out there. It just asks the question: where are they? If you assume that humans are technologically primitive and there are races at a much higher stage of development, that still begs the question why no one has tried to communicate. There are dozens of ways to answer that question but it remains a mystery until one of them shows up and says "We're here".

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

A few things.

The Universe isn't 9 billion years old but 13.7 billion years old plus or minus a few hundred million years.

You might have a reading comprehension issue... I said "The universe as we see today is about 9 billion years old. Prior to that we are talking massive supernovas with really no planets and normal stars to get life going."

What this means is the universe spent billions of years in mostly a supernova state as 90 other natural elements were created too that makes up what the universe is today.

The age of our solar system is around 4.57 billion years and to have forgotten the other two planets in the habitable zone which may have had already sustained life earlier in their history. I am talking about Mars and Venus.

Still Mars and Venus could sustain microbial life at the moment we speak.

So I wasn't talking life in general, but advance life. Life in general is going to be all over the place, but advance life as I spelled out is most likely very rare.

Furthermore moons such as Europa could be placed where entire ecosystems can be found. Europa contains salty water underneath its icy surface. About 2-3 times the water here on Earth.

So good point, but what are the chances of advance life ever forming there? You seem to be mixing up my post as to say life in general and I was talking about advance ecosystems and not just any form of life.

There are about 100-2000 billion galaxies in the Universe and each one has on average around 100 billion stars and at least as many planets. Many of them in the habitable zones...

Ya so, two very determents to a species is time and distance. Species just can not deal with either very well. If we ever run into another race it will be in the form of self replicating AI that would be doing some mission maybe billions of years after their builders have come and gone. Life is most likely everywhere but species come and go in a blink of an eye.

You say about liguid core? Which one is the liguid core? Planets that can sustain life must have a metallic core with a solid inner core and a molten outer core so to produce a magnetic field according to the dynamo effect.

"Which one is the liquid core?" The liquid one... 100% solid and you get Mars...

I am going to have to answer in different replies about the many points made.

Are you sure that the universe as we see it today is about 9 billion years old and in the first let's say 4.7 billion years of its existence there were no planets and planetary systems?

If you are to suggest this then you haven't taken into consideration that not all supernovas are of the same mass and size. The more massive a star then the shorter its life cycle.



You could have had planetary systems formed long time ago. Longer than what you think..and planets able to support life even at a very early stage.

www.space.com...

This means that planets that could potentially have supported life may have formed eight, ten, maybe even twelve billion years ago.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I think the way most people look at the universe is wrong.

Each solar system is anchored by a sun.
Each sun emits energy and mass. That in turn forms planets due to the physical focres of our universe. If there is a sun there will be planets. The sheer nature of the sun is to create planets.

I believe that you will find planets orbiting each sun in ratios similar to our solar system. If the sun is bigger or smaller those planets will follow the ratio of distance our planets follow. You could call those spaces or orbits gravity wells.

As the planets form and the universe stabilizes moons will begin to find shelters in planetary orbits.
These moons are the real key to whether life takes root and survives. They protect the planet and their gravitational pull moves oceans and atmosphere around these planets.

Each planet will have an atmosphere, some extremely thin, some extremely thick, and some similar to ours.

Life will develop everywhere the condition is right. It is a natural progression of universal nature.

Our solar system is not unique. It's nature on its grandest scale.

What will be unique is sentient life that is as developed or more developed than we are.

We will figure out how to find these planets, by looking at the systems we have already found large planets in.

Eventually we will find that the age and size of the distant sun's will provide clues as to how many planets we can expect to find and where they should be located.

We still have some major hurdles to jump over before we really begin to explore but once we get there I don't think we will have to look very hard to find itthat sentient life, since I believe they have found us already.

Having witnessed a ufo It's hard to believe we are alone.

originally posted by: nonspecific
You'd think by now that we would have seen something that would give us an indication we are not alone wouldn't you.

Maybe we don't know how to look yet, maybe we are the first ones, maybe we are the last ones.


a reply to: Nickn3

We do. We have all those grey aliens talking secretly with the NWO that happen to repeatedly leave their UFO running lights on and forget to cloak. Can fly millions of light years, but can’t figure out how to land in a wheat field without leaving a burnt circle.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Asmodeus3

What about the Fermi Paradox? Where are they? I think there's intelligent life out there too. But perhaps our methods of communication are incompatible. If they had the ability to detect us, why no attempt at communication?
If the tables were turned and we detected an alien civilization, would we attempt to communicate? After some research and investigation, I think we would.
Lots of questions, with no clear answers.

It's not a paradox though. It's a misguided view based on the lack of understanding of several variables. Not only the ones appear in the equation.

Let's say that humans are primitive technologically and not in the best position to make good predictions.

It's like filling a glass with sea water and then you conclude there is no life in the sea of any form as clearly there is nothing much in your glass apart from microorganisms you won't be able to see unless you have a microscope.

I don't think the paradox says there's no life out there. It just asks the question: where are they? If you assume that humans are technologically primitive and there are races at a much higher stage of development, that still begs the question why no one has tried to communicate. There are dozens of ways to answer that question but it remains a mystery until one of them shows up and says "We're here".

I didn't imply this either.

The so-called paradox asks where are the others.
We don't even know in what context Fermi asked this question if he really asked it.

Arguments based on the Fermi 'paradox' are at least misguided as they don't take into account several variables as I said above. Not only the variables in the equation itself but in the way we can communicate with each other and our different physiologies.

Consider the intensity of a signal for example that obeys the inverse square law. It will be almost impossible for a signal to be detected and the aliens to be able to extract this from the background noise. Even if the distance from our star to their star isn't that great.

Consider the distances. The diameter of the milky way is 85,000 to 90,000 light years although other estimates out it higher. We have been broadcasting for 100 years so our signals have travelled 100 light years but not in all directions. Anything beyond that will be unable to receive any message and vice versa anything far away cannot have reached us yet.

Consider the event and that we did receive a message long time ago when humans were homo Neanderthals.

Or that signals may have come to Earth long before there were any humans.

I find it really difficult that we will detect signals or our signals will be detected. Radio waves are not a good way for cosmic communication.

Every now and then an odd signal can come to Earth. The WOW signal for example...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Are you sure that the universe as we see it today is about 9 billion years old and in the first let's say 4.7 billion years of its existence there were no planets and planetary systems?

If the universe started out as 99.9% Hydrogen it was a lot different for a very long time. Our solar system is 4.5 billion years old. You seem to want to debate something that was really not my point, but you want to make it a point. If you want to say the universe as it is today started 12 billion years ago it doesn't really change my point, so have at it.

If you are to suggest this then you haven't taken into consideration that not all supernovas are of the same mass and size. The more massive a star then the shorter its life cycle.

Fully understand that... There also needed expansion with everything smashed together, then galaxies needed to form and then solar systems etc. Still doesn't change my point.

You could have had planetary systems formed long time ago. Longer than what you think..and planets able to support life even at a very early stage.

OK don't care, not my point and you are now talking about a much smaller number of planets too.

This means that planets that could potentially have supported life may have formed eight, ten, maybe even twelve billion years ago.

Maybe, but how many are we talking here? No where near what we have today. I would also think the universe was rather chaotic in the earlier times, so as I explained you need long periods of consistency for advance life to mature.

Both of us are speculative at best.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your example of a signal which obeys the inverse square law is good. Hadn't thought about that. I don't think there's anything in quantum theory either that could serve as a signal generator which might jump over that. Bob and Alice don't communicate when they're entangled. They're just related by an entangled particle.

We're really talking about the transfer of information. The speed of light is a barrier but not a limit. General relativity doesn't forbid faster than the speed of light. It forbids accelerating from below to above the speed of light. Some physicists hypothesize genuine nonlocality, not just entanglement. That would suggest that information could travel faster than the speed of light through space-time. Of course, a massive amount of energy would be involved, but it's not impossible. Expansion of the universe forces the arrow of time in one direction with entropy always increasing. But we know that small quantum fluctuations can actually reverse entropy. We're not at a place where we can exploit a technology that would do that, but maybe someone else out there has.

The depressing part is that if all this is true, then the chances of meeting up with an alien race is probably zero, at least based on our own perception of the universe.

Definitely food for thought. Thanks for the thread.

phys.org...


There should be more evidence of alien technology than alien biology across the Milky Way

The equation itself was centered around the search for radio signals. However, its formulation would imply that it is more likely to see what are now commonly called "biosignatures" rather than technological ones. For example, astronomers could find methane in a planet's atmosphere, which is a clear sign of life, even if that planet hasn't developed any advanced intelligence yet.

That search for biosignatures wasn't possible when Drake originally wrote the equation—but it is now. As such, it might be time to modify some of the factors in the original equation to reflect scientists' new search capabilities better. One way to do that is to split the equation into two separate ones, reflecting the search for biosignatures and technosignatures respectively.

Biosignatures, captured in the new framework by the term N(bio), would likely develop much more commonly than technosignatures, captured in the new framework as N(tech). Logically that would result from the fact that the number of planets that go on to develop a technologically advanced civilization is much less than the total number of planets that form life in the first place. After all, it took Earth around 4 billion years after its first spark of life to develop an intelligent civilization

a reply to: Asmodeus3

astronomers could find methane in a planet's atmosphere, which is a clear sign of life

No. Astronomers could find methane in a planet's atmosphere, but this does not mean its origin is biological. It can very well be created by volcanic activity and other geophysical processes which do not invole life at all. Methane made it for a good biomarker in the 70's. Today the conclusion is different: we need to look for non-natural xenobiotics as atmospheric biomarkers.

But even if you find methane you still need to determine whether it comes from the planet's mantle (in which case it means there was life).

All in all, humans are looking for life signatures (bio or techno) as they know it. It is the only thing they can do, anyway. Aliens, I guess, would search for signatures of life, as they know it. Whether the idea of what's life and what's not for humans and aliens is the same is unclear.

Unless they prey on humans, in which case I'm sure they excel in finding human life.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Asmodeus3

astronomers could find methane in a planet's atmosphere, which is a clear sign of life

No. Astronomers could find methane in a planet's atmosphere, but this does not mean its origin is biological. It can very well be created by volcanic activity and other geophysical processes which do not invole life at all. Methane made it for a good biomarker in the 70's. Today the conclusion is different: we need to look for non-natural xenobiotics as atmospheric biomarkers.

But even if you find methane you still need to determine whether it comes from the planet's mantle (in which case it means there was life).

All in all, humans are looking for life signatures (bio or techno) as they know it. It is the only thing they can do, anyway. Aliens, I guess, would search for signatures of life, as they know it. Whether the idea of what's life and what's not for humans and aliens is the same is unclear.

Unless they prey on humans, in which case I'm sure they excel in finding human life.

I think the article I linked argues that finding methane is a compelling argument for the existence of life on another planet. It is obviously not proof that life exists in this planet but the chances are highly likely.




www.universetoday.com...



It’s Not Conclusive, But Methane is Probably the Best Sign of Life on Exoplanets

When the James Webb Space Telescope aims at exoplanet atmospheres, it’ll use spectroscopy to identify chemical elements. One of the things it’s looking for is methane, a chemical compound that can indicate the presence of life.

Methane is a compelling biosignature. Finding a large amount of methane in an exoplanet’s atmosphere might be our most reliable indication that life’s at work there. There are abiotic sources of methane, but for the most part, methane comes from life.

From another thread that I have started but very relevant to the conversation here.

www.nasa.gov...

The late Noachian period (from 4.1 billion to 3.5 billion years ago) is the period usually thought to be habitable on Mars, with significant rain near the equator, as demonstrated by the presence of valley networks – features formed by erosion from flowing water -- at this age.

It seems that the window of opportunity for Mars to develop complex forms of life existed for a good 600 million years and very long time ago when life either didn't exist on Earth or it was at primitive stages. I think microbial life is dated back to 3.5-3.7 billion years.

Remarkably Mars probably developed several forms of life a little after the solar system was created 4.6 billion years ago. It looks like it took a much shorter time for life to be created on Mars.

originally posted by: nonspecific
If it is abundant as you believe what would you say regarding the Fermi paradox?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

What advanced civilization would want to make contact with talking monkeys that kill each other and the planet? And in evolutionary terms when was the last time you tried talking to an ant?

Drake and Fermi are not mutually exclusive.

originally posted by: CyberBuddha

originally posted by: nonspecific
If it is abundant as you believe what would you say regarding the Fermi paradox?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

What advanced civilization would want to make contact with talking monkeys that kill each other and the planet? And in evolutionary terms when was the last time you tried talking to an ant?

Drake and Fermi are not mutually exclusive.

If you see my posts above we will never know in which context the question was asked by Fermi if he really asked this question.

If you read my posts you will see why Fermi's question didn't lead to a paradox. There is no paradox here.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your example of a signal which obeys the inverse square law is good. Hadn't thought about that. I don't think there's anything in quantum theory either that could serve as a signal generator which might jump over that. Bob and Alice don't communicate when they're entangled. They're just related by an entangled particle.

We're really talking about the transfer of information. The speed of light is a barrier but not a limit. General relativity doesn't forbid faster than the speed of light. It forbids accelerating from below to above the speed of light. Some physicists hypothesize genuine nonlocality, not just entanglement. That would suggest that information could travel faster than the speed of light through space-time. Of course, a massive amount of energy would be involved, but it's not impossible. Expansion of the universe forces the arrow of time in one direction with entropy always increasing. But we know that small quantum fluctuations can actually reverse entropy. We're not at a place where we can exploit a technology that would do that, but maybe someone else out there has.

The depressing part is that if all this is true, then the chances of meeting up with an alien race is probably zero, at least based on our own perception of the universe.

Definitely food for thought. Thanks for the thread.

If you look at the intensity formula you will be able to see that the strength of radio waves obeys the inverse square law. Hence if you double the distance then the strength reduces by a factor of 4.

Imagine you double the initial distance of let's say 10 light years to 20 light years and then keep doubling until you get a few thousand light years... Your signal will be so weak that will be impossible for anyone there to pick it up, I'd we assume it reaches some destination.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Life in my statement would only be conscious beings with intelligence equal to or greater than our own.

Plant life, insects , even alien animals just don't excite me.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Life in my statement would only be conscious beings with intelligence equal to or greater than our own.

Plant life, insects , even alien animals just don't excite me.

Life comes in many forms.
Some are very primitive and simple and other forms are much more complex. However it's still life. The moment we discover life elsewhere our worldview will change dramatically.

It's not a question of whether we find life but when it will we find it.

There's a lot of civilizations but we're too far away to see most and we can only see via light... our solar system's "light". We assume it's the universal visualization tool. Of course, we're low IQ animals and very limited visually even on our own planet. Most colors added to these graphics of pixelated artwork NASA calls pictures of planets and objects in the universe are completely made up and are supposed to represent the molecular content of said bodies but it is all speculation. And we constantly detect things that shouldn't exist based on our science and physics. Proving we honestly have no idea what we are looking at because earth matter and molecules would mostly be of our solar system's by-product solely. We assume light interacts environmentally the same everywhere yet atmospheres are completely different once outside of our star system. We don't even know the true temperature outside of our solar system. Voyager 2 detected a plasma like atmosphere and much hotter than expected. As we learn even on earth... Light is influenced by temperature. Making yesterday's "light year" flawed and miscalculated.

Based on our distorted visual "light" gives us of the stars accompanied with time dilation and vast distances, filled with plasma like atmospheres of dark matter. We are pretty much blind to what reality is outside of our solar system. It seems as though ... We are intentionally blind. Astronomers never apply these basic fundamentals to searching for E.T. .... Why? Why attempt to portray we are possibly the only civilization? Perhaps we are not allowed the privilege yet and E.T. is already here and controlling what we see, hear, taste, feel... We don't actually control our own senses at all. Yet we believe we are in total control of ourselves.

To find e.t. We must first find ourselves.



a reply to: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: GGAllin1334

To find e.t. We must first find ourselves.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I believe this is the core issue surrounding the secrecy of ET. They would be able to reveal what we humans really are. The powers that be can’t allow that.

I think ET knows that most humans probably couldn’t face the truth about the true nature of our existence and therefore they don’t self disclose.

But then again, what do I know.

originally posted by: GGAllin1334

To find e.t. We must first find ourselves.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Bingo!

I believe this is the core issue surrounding the secrecy of ET. They would be able to reveal what we humans really are. The powers that be can’t allow that.

I think ET knows that most humans probably couldn’t face the truth about the true nature of our existence and therefore they don’t self disclose.

But then again, what do I know…?