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: 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...
originally posted by: RMFX1
a reply to: CyberBuddha
All theoretical. None of this is proven and never will be. Understanding the workings of the universe is beyond our capability and scope. So why even worry about it?
originally posted by: RMFX1
a reply to: CyberBuddha
All theoretical. None of this is proven and never will be. Understanding the workings of the universe is beyond our capability and scope. So why even worry about it?
originally posted by: RMFX1
I think we're alone. If we weren't we'd be able to detect it by now, or conversely it would have detected us. It's dead out there.
originally posted by: Asmodeus3
originally posted by: RMFX1
I think we're alone. If we weren't we'd be able to detect it by now, or conversely it would have detected us. It's dead out there.
I don't think you have taken into consideration several factors of have come to a premature conclusion.
It's like having a glass of sea water and concluding there is no life in the sea as you can't see much going on in your glass apart from salty water...
originally posted by: RMFX1
a reply to: CyberBuddha
All theoretical. None of this is proven and never will be. Understanding the workings of the universe is beyond our capability and scope. So why even worry about it?
originally posted by: CyberBuddha
originally posted by: RMFX1
a reply to: CyberBuddha
All theoretical. None of this is proven and never will be. Understanding the workings of the universe is beyond our capability and scope. So why even worry about it?
Dark energy and dark matter do exist. Not a matter of belief.
we can't see dark matter as it doesn't interact with light
originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Asmodeus3
we can't see dark matter as it doesn't interact with light
If that definition were correct, then you wouldn't be able to see any of the many common non-charged particles. What you mean is that you have not detected dark matter there where you should have detected it, which opens the question to its very existence.
You don't need light at all to ascertain the existence of particles, except obviously, photons themselves. Photons interact to first order only with all charged elementary particles, and to higher order with the neutral elementary particles. Light occupies no special position in particle physics. Photons are just bosons, and they are given equal standing to the rest of the particles.
Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
originally posted by: Ksihkehe
originally posted by: Asmodeus3
originally posted by: RMFX1
I think we're alone. If we weren't we'd be able to detect it by now, or conversely it would have detected us. It's dead out there.
I don't think you have taken into consideration several factors of have come to a premature conclusion.
It's like having a glass of sea water and concluding there is no life in the sea as you can't see much going on in your glass apart from salty water...
I like that analogy.
I will add something that seems to be overlooked so far, but plays into the idea that we don't even know where or how we should be looking.
We spend a great deal of time talking about the goldilocks zone, but looking for the goldilocks zone is like trying to find the first root of a seedling when you're really looking for trees.
Our limited technology and advancement puts us much closer to bacteria than it does a species with an order of intelligence above ours. We have limits we don't even know.
If life originates in what we might call the goldilocks zone, with tidal motion to spur the evolution of that life, volcanic activity, a living planet, then there would be a time limit to them remaining there based on my understanding. On our little time scale that seems irrelevant, but the kind of intelligence we might be looking for in a 15 billion year old system is likely to be at a very different place in their evolution. A sufficiently advanced species would likely leave their planet at some point, even if they master sufficient technology to mitigate the natural shift of their planet to conditions that no longer support life.
With sufficient technology it would seem that planets outside the goldilocks zone, inert and relatively stable, would be better places to set up shop. They have no existing life to deal with, no cataclysmic geological events, and can be chosen based on abundsncd of base resources needed to set up life supporting system. This life may not even be carbon based or biological as we understand it, having developed alternative housing for their consciousness.
I think life is definitely out there, but intelligence and life may both need new definitions for us to ever understand it. Self-discovery will likely need to advance before we get a better grasp on that.
originally posted by: CyberBuddha
This fact always blows my mind. The probability is high that most intelligent life is not made of normal matter. We humans may be a huge anomaly in the universe.
originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Yes indeed, as looking at a glass of sea water and concluding there is no life in the ocean seems to be the same principle upon which others conclude there is no life in the Universe other than us without even looking in the history of our star system where it's very likely life existed on Mars and Venus. At the moment there might be an entire ecosystem underneath the icy surface of Europa.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Yes indeed, as looking at a glass of sea water and concluding there is no life in the ocean seems to be the same principle upon which others conclude there is no life in the Universe other than us without even looking in the history of our star system where it's very likely life existed on Mars and Venus. At the moment there might be an entire ecosystem underneath the icy surface of Europa.
Is there anyone that actually says there is no life out there but us? Too many people generalize by saying any life when what the OP is talking about is life at the level of "Extraterrestrial Civilizations". That is a huge difference to debating if life could be on Europa, as example.
originally posted by: Asmodeus3
There are those (not necessarily on this thread) who argue that life is very rare, generally speaking.
However as I see it life seems to be a very frequency event and part of this event is more complex life according to how slow or rapid evolution is in different planets and parts of the Universe.
I see. But you said we can't see dark matter and my point is that whatever you, as an observer, can see is irrelevant for physics. From Einstein's field equations you cannot infer the need for an observer. At all. This means that if dark matter exists, it must be inferred even by blind observers, in case you need an observer at all.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Direne
I see. But you said we can't see dark matter and my point is that whatever you, as an observer, can see is irrelevant for physics. From Einstein's field equations you cannot infer the need for an observer. At all. This means that if dark matter exists, it must be inferred even by blind observers, in case you need an observer at all.
I think he means detection i.e. instrument detection. That's also an act of observation, but in a more objective sense. We wouldn't know any detail about what is out there without instrumentation. The field equations do not require an observer. But in order to confirm the rightness or wrongness of those equations or others, instrumentation is critical. Einstein developed relativity in 1915. But it wasn't until 1919 when it was observed and confirmed during a solar eclipse.
Humans are always congratulating themselves about how smart they are. But the reality is we are extremely limited in natural skills. Our brains help us develop around the problem, but huge limitations still remain notwithstanding our sophisticated detection techniques.