Extraterrestrial Civilisations in our own Galaxy

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
My view in this matter is that life is abundant in the Universe. Not just intelligent life but life in general.

Life is probably abundant, there may even be life in our solar system like microorganisms living on underground water and nutrients under the Martian surface.

Intelligent life is likely far less common, from looking at the history of the Earth during which non-intelligent life was largely present and intelligent life was not, nor does intelligent life seem to be an inevitable goal of evolution.

We can't do anything but make sophisticated guesses, but let's say there are 10 intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy, one of the estimates made using the Drake equation on an episode of the old Cosmos by Carl Sagan (see time 6:06 in this video).

Carl Sagan solving the Drake equation

N=10 means 10 intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way, though he also calculated another, larger number which would not appear to be consistent with the Fermi paradox.

If N=10, the other 9 civilizations would likely be so far from us that we will probably never have any contact with them. If there are also an average of 10 intelligent civilizations in every other galaxy, sure that's a lot of intelligent civilizations in the universe, but the likelihood of contacting any of those is far smaller than the other 9 in our galaxy.

Stephen Webb explains why he doesn't expect 10 intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way, even though he saw a UFO defying the laws of physics so one might assume it had to be an alien space ship:


He explains that the Earth and its history is more unique than some people realize, and he gives some odds which don't match what people put into the Drake equation because he considers things the Drake equation doesn't highlight.

Webb's explanation is one possible solution to the Fermi paradox.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Asmodeus3
Yes. Billion of galaxies hosting civilizations that cannot reach to each other, not even talk to each other. I call that to be alone.

That's a good point. I don't understand why people even bring up galaxies other than our own when discussing other intelligent civilizations. The other galaxies are just too far away to matter in any significant way. If there are 10 intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way, we would need lots of luck for one of them to happen to be close enough to us to be contactable via radio messages.

We are at the beginning of space exploration and we are technologically primitive.

originally posted by: Daalder
a reply to: Asmodeus3

A very probable conclusion.

Off topic: Nederlander?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
My view in this matter is that life is abundant in the Universe. Not just intelligent life but life in general.

Life is probably abundant, there may even be life in our solar system like microorganisms living on underground water and nutrients under the Martian surface.

Intelligent life is likely far less common, from looking at the history of the Earth during which non-intelligent life was largely present and intelligent life was not, nor does intelligent life seem to be an inevitable goal of evolution.

We can't do anything but make sophisticated guesses, but let's say there are 10 intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy (one of the estimates made using the Drake equation on an episode of the old Cosmos by Carl Sagan). The other 9 are likely so far from us that we will probably never have any contact with them. If there are also an average of 10 intelligent civilizations in every other galaxy, sure that's a lot of intelligent civilizations in the universe, but the likelihood of contacting any of those is far smaller than the other 9 in our galaxy.

Stephen Webb explains why he doesn't expect 10 intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way, even though he saw a UFO defying the laws of physics so one might assume it had to be an alien space ship:

He explains that the Earth and its history is more unique than some people realize, and he gives some odds which don't match what people put into the Drake equation because he considers things the Drake equation doesn't highlight.

Webb's explanation is one possible solution to the Fermi paradox.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Asmodeus3
Yes. Billion of galaxies hosting civilizations that cannot reach to each other, not even talk to each other. I call that to be alone.

That's a good point. I don't understand why people even bring up galaxies other than our own when discussing other intelligent civilizations. The other galaxies are just too far away to matter in any significant way. If there are 10 intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way, we would need lots of luck for one of them to happen to be close enough to us to be contactable via radio messages.

Addressing your last paragraph.

The aim is to be able to find alien life of any form and understand what is the probability that alien life exists. The chances amplify significantly if we take into consideration the number of galaxies in the universe. There could be 10 intelligent civilisations currently in our galaxy but there could be many more.

Welp , here I go again (and wish I didn't have to)
The "Drake" equation is not an equation .
It was to show how astronomy could use the Laws of Probability .
Frank Drake put forward the idea , and used modern , popular, thinking "aliens" as an example.
Even sort of a poke at the subject.

Roll forward to the 21st century.
Mathematicians and others have carried on and actually expanded the probability factors to include "most" of the factors known today.
Thus making the "Drake Equation" a true equation.

The results :
We may very well be alone in the universe.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Welp , here I go again (and wish I didn't have to)
The "Drake" equation is not an equation .
It was to show how astronomy could use the Laws of Probability .
Frank Drake put forward the idea , and used modern , popular, thinking "aliens" as an example.
Even sort of a poke at the subject.

Roll forward to the 21st century.
Mathematicians and others have carried on and actually expanded the probability factors to include "most" of the factors known today.
Thus making the "Drake Equation" a true equation.

The results :
We may very well be alone in the universe.

I have said at the beginning that this is a probabilistic argument.

However what results are you quoting they convince the scientific community it's likely we are alone in the Universe??

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You know , the Drake Equation does not take into Account Suns and Planets that Do Not Vibrate in the 3RD Dimension , and are Not Observable to Our Own 3 Dimensional Reality in this Observable Universe we Exist In . There is it's Major Flaw IMO........

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Gothmog
Welp , here I go again (and wish I didn't have to)
The "Drake" equation is not an equation .
It was to show how astronomy could use the Laws of Probability .
Frank Drake put forward the idea , and used modern , popular, thinking "aliens" as an example.
Even sort of a poke at the subject.

Roll forward to the 21st century.
Mathematicians and others have carried on and actually expanded the probability factors to include "most" of the factors known today.
Thus making the "Drake Equation" a true equation.

The results :
We may very well be alone in the universe.

I have said at the beginning that this is a probabilistic argument.

However what results are you quoting they convince the scientific community it's likely we are alone in the Universe??

It ain't me .
I just studied the Laws of Probability and know one has to include all factors into an equation such as the probability of rolling a "weighted dice" coming up with a specific number .

Most folks only think of the situation through eyes that only see "big numbers" .

Look at it like this :
What is the probability I will be hit by a meteor traveling down a side alley in New York , in a Yellow Cab , precisely at noon , on my way to a Chinese restaurant , wearing striped pajamas , purple socks , penny loafers , for my birthday ?

Yes , there would always be a "chance" (due to the word infinite), yet so far out there it will most likely not happen as one has to factor in each condition and its probability .

You just don't take the first part , or any part , and say "thar ya go"

I have said at the beginning that this is a probabilistic argument.

Not even that .
Drake's Equation is not an equation.
It was an example of how probability could be used in astronomy .
And a bit of a "joke" from Frank himself .

a reply to: nonspecific

Well, the fermi paradox is why cant we spot them intelligent civilizations. If Doug Vought of the diehold foundation is right and every 12068 years there is a clock cycle reset, at which point all stars in the universe Nova and shed their outter shell sending it outwards through the solar systems, then that would be a devastating effect that resets these advanced civilisations back to the stone age. Unless they had underground protection from it all.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I have said at the beginning that this is a probabilistic argument.

However what results are you quoting they convince the scientific community it's likely we are alone in the Universe??

I'm interested in Gothmog's answer, but in addition to the Stephen Webb video I posted earlier, our planet and solar system so far do not appear to be as typical as we might have guessed decades ago before finding lots of exoplanets:

Our assumption that we live in a typical solar system and there must be many more like it has been shattered. There may be more solar systems like ours, but those we are finding are generally quite unlike ours.

Stanford explainer: Exoplanets and other ‘Earths’

6. Is Earth special?

The short answer: So far, we haven’t seen anything else like it.

...the question we’re trying to answer now is whether our solar system is rare – because a solar system like ours would be more likely to have an Earth. From what we’ve seen so far, planets overall huddle closer to their stars than the planets in our solar system. If every star had a solar system like our own, we’d probably know about maybe 10 planets in the entire surveyed universe but, instead, we’ve found about 4,000.

Does that mean the combination of events that led to a well-behaved solar system with a planet that people can evolve on is very rare? Or are these solar systems just hard to find?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Of all the limiting factors, it is "L" that scares me the most -
"L : The average length of time such civilizations produce such signs (years)."

Yikes. For humans, it seems like L is pretty limiting, since we live on a planet around a star in the galactic plane, subject to the periodic varying forces of the galactic magnetic current sheet, and impactors, and yada yada yada.

I wonder if L is the limiting factor everywhere else too?

Edit to add: Oh yah, and I didn't even mention the threat we pose to our own civilization's survival, among everything else.

a reply to: Gothmog

If you have truly studied probability, then you know it is as close to blasphemy as you can get scientifically to introduce numerous unnecessary constraints.

If the subject of your formula is your odds of being struck by a meteor, then all the other conditional elements are frivolous wastes of time. If you want to estimate your chances of being struck by a meteor, do it. Yes, you can continue to add additional constraints until the odds are so negligible it isn't worth the time to calculate it. But that does not invalidate any more realistic potential you may have arrived at without the unnecessary fluff.

Your assertion that you have to consider every single possible random option is blatantly false. The most pure assessment you can possibly get is one that directly addresses the singular element and nothing else. Remember, you are talking about probability, not meeting impossibly stringent conditions. The most basic example is the coin flipping experiment. If you flip a coin enough times you will end up with an even distribution of heads/tails. At no time are any additional elements introduced to the experiment. You could add all sorts of constraints like the height weight race age and gender of the person flipping the coin, but what is the point of that? It accomplishes nothing.

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Of all the limiting factors, it is "L" that scares me the most -
"L : The average length of time such civilizations produce such signs (years)."

Yikes. For humans, it seems like L is pretty limiting, since we live on a planet around a star in the galactic plane, subject to the periodic varying forces of the galactic magnetic current sheet, and impactors, and yada yada yada.

I wonder if L is the limiting factor everywhere else too?

Edit to add: Oh yah, and I didn't even mention the threat we pose to our own civilization's survival, among everything else.

You are correct on your observation!

The average length of time such civilisations produce and receive these signals is indeed a limiting factor.

Imagine that I civilisation did manage to send us a few signals around 4 million years ago. Humans were not around to pick it up. What happens after 4 million years? Well, probably the other civilisation did extinct and we are here unable to realise that messages were sent in the past from extinct civilisations.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Gothmog
Welp , here I go again (and wish I didn't have to)
The "Drake" equation is not an equation .
It was to show how astronomy could use the Laws of Probability .
Frank Drake put forward the idea , and used modern , popular, thinking "aliens" as an example.
Even sort of a poke at the subject.

Roll forward to the 21st century.
Mathematicians and others have carried on and actually expanded the probability factors to include "most" of the factors known today.
Thus making the "Drake Equation" a true equation.

The results :
We may very well be alone in the universe.

I have said at the beginning that this is a probabilistic argument.

However what results are you quoting they convince the scientific community it's likely we are alone in the Universe??

It ain't me .
I just studied the Laws of Probability and know one has to include all factors into an equation such as the probability of rolling a "weighted dice" coming up with a specific number .

Most folks only think of the situation through eyes that only see "big numbers" .

Look at it like this :
What is the probability I will be hit by a meteor traveling down a side alley in New York , in a Yellow Cab , precisely at noon , on my way to a Chinese restaurant , wearing striped pajamas , purple socks , penny loafers , for my birthday ?

Yes , there would always be a "chance" (due to the word infinite), yet so far out there it will most likely not happen as one has to factor in each condition and its probability .

You just don't take the first part , or any part , and say "thar ya go"

I have said at the beginning that this is a probabilistic argument.

Not even that .
Drake's Equation is not an equation.
It was an example of how probability could be used in astronomy .
And a bit of a "joke" from Frank himself .

You said you have studied the laws of probability.
Ok let's assume this is true.

But my question is what results are you quoting that have convinced the scientific community we maybe along in the Universe. Coming back to what you have said before.

The chance of getting hit by a little meteor while in New York has nothing to do with the chance of intelligent life existing somewhere in the Universe. The former has probably chance close to zero and the latter chance closer to 1.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Maybe the equation is no better than the intelligence of the species that uses it?

Would someone more advanced than us, look at the equation and laugh, like we laugh at drawings made by pre-schoolers?

a reply to: Vroomfondel



If only Douglas Adams was here to sort things out and shed some perspective on probabilities and existence in general.

Majikthise says hi...

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: Vroomfondel

If only Douglas Adams was here to sort things out and shed some perspective on probabilities and existence in general.

Majikthise says hi...

42 Skidoo !

One case to consider when looking for other intelligent species is the Chilbolton Arecibo message.

Link

How SETI can write this off as it occurred next to one of their facilities does raise the question 'How much more are they hiding?

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: Vroomfondel

If only Douglas Adams was here to sort things out and shed some perspective on probabilities and existence in general.

Majikthise says hi...

He's one cool frood. He really knows where he towel is at.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

If the subject of your formula is your odds of being struck by a meteor, then all the other conditional elements are frivolous wastes of time

So , that proves you know very of Probability and Statistics and less of Drake's equation.
You just can't put a probability that life developed without calculating in all factors .
That is the reason Drake stated that Drake's Equation was not an equation , just an example .

Yet , folks ignorant of the story behind it takes it literally .
Tell me you are not in that group .

And I will state one more time here :
Drake's equation has been revised with just about all factors that would determine the probability .
This is the 21st century after all .
The outcome ?
We may well be alone in this universe , not just this galaxy .

End game , I grow bored.