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: Kandinsky
You're right
Hypothetically we could have two dozen similar civilisations at greater distances than, say, 80ly away. If the maximum extent of their technological abilities is close to ours, we wouldn't be able to see them yet. If any were at pre-Industrial Age levels, they'll be invisible until our ability to analyse their atmospheres improves. This is optimism talking
Drake's Equation has always attracted unrealistic attention. Sometimes it's cited as *proof* of gazilions of advanced worlds and others use it to say no life out there. As you know, it's a fine attempt to rationalize the possibilities and probabilities and his equation has stayed relevant. Sure, some have added/removed values, but it's still his and still is a useful tool.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
*snip*
Three problems... Time, distance and species...
Time: We have about 9 billion years from the start of when the universe started to have suns with planets, the normal thing we see today. The earth is 1/2 that time and within 4.5 billion years one species has made it to the moon...not very good odds on a lot of space faring species.
*snip*
Until recently, we didn't think so. The prevailing wisdom had been that the magic of stellar alchemy didn't produce enough useful "star-stuff" to build terrestrial worlds until at least six or seven billion years after the Big Bang. Initial studies of exoplanets backed this up, finding worlds around stars with a "metallicity" (i.e. a heavy element abundance) equal to or greater than our Sun. However, it turns out that the biases that affected our early planet hunting also skewed our understanding of the types of stars that could form planets. Until 2009 and the launch of NASA's Kepler mission, the vast majority of exoplanets known to exist were gas giants close to their stars, simply because these were the easiest to detect. These planets seemed to prefer higher metallicity stars.
originally posted by: jonnywhite
In my prior post I knew population I stars started occuring about 5 billion years after the big bang. These're sun-like. However, I assumed they had planets and they were similar. That's now corrected here.
originally posted by: frenchfries
Still no official contact so what do we conclude ?
originally posted by: Xtrozero
*snip*
To create a space faring species there is a lot that would go into that mix for it to happen, and as I said earth with all its abundance created only one possible species in 4.5 billion years that at least went to the moon. Not very good odds even with one sample point.
originally posted by: jonnywhite
4.5 billion years to be where we're is indeed a long time. That's what you were saying, I'm sorry I missed that. I've read before some scientists were mystified life on this planet evolved so quickly. If life required 4.5 billion years to get where it's at for us, how long will it be for others?
originally posted by: orionthehunter
I don't remember what factor the equation uses for the number of technology intelligent species. In the future, it might be decided that this planet has more than one intelligent species. It might be several.
I remember reading I thought that Dolphins were very intelligent and that their brains were as large as human brains. Dolphins haven't developed technology but they might be included as an intelligent species. Other species might develop technology if humans aren't dominating the planet. I'm thinking about Planet of the Apes.
I heard a long time ago that if humans go extinct because of nuclear war, cockroaches might become the next dominant species. Cockroaches can survive something like 100,000 times the radiation a human can take before death if I remember correctly. I believe I read cockroaches would need almost a direct hit by a nuke to get enough radiation to kill it. I hate thinking the roaches could take over if humans die off but this one planet could generate several intelligent species over time.
*snip*
Some used to believe that evolution was progressive and had a direction that led towards so-called "higher organisms," despite a lack of evidence for this viewpoint.[5] This idea of "progression" and "higher organisms" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.[6] Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life, there has always been a large majority of small and simple organisms and the most common level of complexity (the mode) appears to have remained relatively constant.
This principle would apply to inanimate matter as well. “It is very tempting to speculate about what phenomena in nature we can now fit under this big tent of dissipation-driven adaptive organization,” England said. “Many examples could just be right under our nose, but because we haven’t been looking for them we haven’t noticed them.”
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: 727Sky
It could also be zero.
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Discotech
What actually changed was the realization just how many galaxies there really is. Still only amounts to 2 or 3 species in an entire galaxy. Meaning most if these have no chance of ever meeting. In fact this report is very dishartening because it goes to show the unlikely hood of aliens visiting us.
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.