A New Estimate of Alien Life in Our Galaxy

a reply to: Jay-morris

Yes I totally agree but some non religious people, well they belong in the same place as Joe Biden

a reply to: Phage

Thanks much, Phage! You just addressed some issues about which I've had questions. Especially the one about stellar ages surpassing that of the Universe. That has gained enormous traction on the web and the science countering it wasn't conducive to a quick-skim understanding. Well, at least not for my smooth brain...

a reply to: noonebutme

"Not in the slightest. As Model-T fords don’t grow on trees or from seeds in the ground, it’s very hard to attribute that type of complexity to nature."
LOLOLOL...! Thanks! The laugh this gave me helped ease the headache received from reading everything else in this thread!
And thus I continue...

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

Yes I totally agree but some non religious people, well they belong in the same place as Joe Biden

What has Ole Biden got to do with this. Is he the one who's messiah like cult is growing? No, that's Trump.

As for life in the universe. To think we are the only backward, primitive thinking lifeform in the whole universe, which has billions apon billions of planets. Well, that's a depressing thought.

a reply to: Jay-morris

"As for life in the universe. To think we are the only backward, primitive thinking lifeform in the whole universe, which has billions apon billions of planets. Well, that's a depressing thought".


True - But as of today June 17, 2020 - There is no solid evidence of the existence of any other biological life
anywhere in the known universe.

So you have alien theories and speculation galore - but as of now no Aliens.

The one speculation that can not be discounted is the possibility that biological life is an anomaly in
a universe which is not biological in nature [at least as far as is known]

All we know of the universe classifies it as inorganic - And yet we are an organic life form perceiving it.

If there is Alien life in the univrerse why assume it is organic ?

Maybe there is an inorganic lifeform [conscious entity] that is totally inorganic [think robots or androids]

And isn't it possible that the universe itself is a life form - And we biologicals are the Aliens inside of it

a reply to: noonebutme

For someone claiming to believe in science why do you immediately dismiss the possibility of god when you cannot prove he doesn't exist.

Once upon a time many scientific theories were laughed at because they couldn't be proven at that time.
__---------

Back to the op, I am much more simplistic I refuse to believe we are the Pinnacle of evolution, there must be other actually intelligent species out there

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

"As for life in the universe. To think we are the only backward, primitive thinking lifeform in the whole universe, which has billions apon billions of planets. Well, that's a depressing thought".


True - But as of today June 17, 2020 - There is no solid evidence of the existence of any other biological life
anywhere in the known universe.

So you have alien theories and speculation galore - but as of now no Aliens.

The one speculation that can not be discounted is the possibility that biological life is an anomaly in
a universe which is not biological in nature [at least as far as is known]

All we know of the universe classifies it as inorganic - And yet we are an organic life form perceiving it.

If there is Alien life in the univrerse why assume it is organic ?

Maybe there is an inorganic lifeform [conscious entity] that is totally inorganic [think robots or androids]

And isn't it possible that the universe itself is a life form - And we biologicals are the Aliens inside of it

I believe the first signs of life we find will be in our own solar system. As for finding life in the vastness of the universe by detecting a signal is always going to be hard.

Bit chances are, if there are planets like earth out there, they will have life.

In my opinion, it's not "is there life out there" bit more "it's a matter of time before we find other life in the universe"

originally posted by: AlienView

...The one speculation that can not be discounted is the possibility that biological life is an anomaly in
a universe which is not biological in nature [at least as far as is known]

All we know of the universe classifies it as inorganic - And yet we are an organic life form perceiving it.

If there is Alien life in the univrerse why assume it is organic ?

Maybe there is an inorganic lifeform [conscious entity] that is totally inorganic [think robots or androids]

And isn't it possible that the universe itself is a life form - And we biologicals are the Aliens inside of it

Surely the argument for biological life as an anomaly can possibly be discounted because until every region of the Universe has been explored, without finding biological life, then we will never know it as a fact. So maybe we should not discount any possibility of a Universe teeming with life or containing only one?

A 2011 paper from Glasgow University regarding 'non-biological' life...
Science Daily website

originally posted by: Irishhaf
For someone claiming to believe in science why do you immediately dismiss the possibility of god when you cannot prove he doesn't exist.

Like everyone on earth, I’m truly agnostic, as no one knows. But I’m pretty much an atheist in practice because I do not believe the claims there is a God as there is no evidence.

And it isn’t my position to prove a negative; it’s up to the claimant to prove their claim. Not me to disprove it. Otherwise, take our court systems in the civilised world. It’s (usually) innocent until proven guilty, with the burden of proof up to the prosecution. Otherwise, I could claim you’re a murderer with nothing but ‘my faith/belief’ you did it and circumstantial evidence, leaving it to you to prove the negative, which is ridiculous.

Once upon a time many scientific theories were laughed at because they couldn't be proven at that time.

Very true and maybe a day comes when evidence for some Grand Architect or designer or God is demonstrated through empirical means. So far, in the history of religious belief, there has been a grand total of absolutely zero pieces of evidence. So, I won’t be holding my breath

Until there is a photograph of a planet outside our solar system, it requires your faith to believe it. Scientists are not infallible. I believe astronomy will soon be reconstructed dramatically. "Dark matter" is simply matter that does not exist. They need it to exist to fit the formulas, but no matter how hard they try, they cannot find it. Therefore, since we have reached a dead-end, we need to reconsider everything about our cosmos.

Blind belief in these theoretical hear-says and estimates will do no good progressing an empirical account of the universe.

originally posted by: cooperton
Until there is a photograph of a planet outside our solar system, it requires your faith to believe it. Scientists are not infallible. I believe astronomy will soon be reconstructed dramatically. "Dark matter" is simply matter that does not exist. They need it to exist to fit the formulas, but no matter how hard they try, they cannot find it. Therefore, since we have reached a dead-end, we need to reconsider everything about our cosmos.

Blind belief in these theoretical hear-says and estimates will do no good progressing an empirical account of the universe.

You are basing all this on your blind belief for a God, so that makes pretty much everything you say invalid, because no matter what evidence is thrown at you, you are not going to believe it if it goes against your belief. That's the power of blind faith.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

You are basing all this on your blind belief for a God

No I'm basing this off the fact that the equations don't fit, and the dark matter (non-existent matter) that they are so desperately trying to find is repeatably unfounded.

so that makes pretty much everything you say invalid. because no matter what evidence is thrown at you, you are not going to believe it if it goes against your belief. That's the power of blind faith.

You're so quick triggered you can't even respond intelligibly to the point that I made. I'm here to debate science, not religion.

a reply to: noonebutme

This OP was about maths and science, not fairy tales, so your post has no value here.

You made a fairly absolute statement which means its on you to prove, not a believer to prove you wrong.

Heck I am not even religious but I have no issue believing that someone or something manipulated things in the distant past, seems narrow minded to me to discount things just because something is not provable this instance.

Kinda like the ultra religious people in the past hampering the advances of science.

a reply to: Raggedyman

You seem to want some 'actual' scientific stuff...

Okay:
Publication: N. Peretto, et al., “Global collapse of molecular clouds as a formation mechanism for the most massive stars,”
available here:

One very serious issue with demanding that actual science is; understanding. Sometimes it is better to read and begin to accept the interpretation of someone with a wee bit more knowledge and education in the matter at hand, (s)he may be able to explain what all the real science and math mean with out your "white-out" to the over load of higher education (requirements in math, physics, astronomy, astrophysics, etc.).

Those aren't "fairy-tails" meant for the amusement of children, but explanations in more common language of what the scientists have found, or are currently 'thinking'.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

As a believer in alien life, I am strongly fascinated by UFOs but firmly in the camp that they are not alien visitors from another world, and more in the belief they are either our own tech or possibly inter-dimensional...which is just as astonishing as visitors from another world.

Thanks for reading.

Agree 100%


Drake was wrong in many ways, as we are discovering that planets are more of a norm than not, so I think No 2 can be removed. No 3 is also kind of incorrect in a planet might not support life but a moon around that planet could.

In the end we can predict that life is out there most likely in abundance, as in if conditions are right it would be strange for it not to happen, so 1 through 4 is a given and will most likely be very common, but at 5 it starts to get tricky in just what percentage are we talking about.

Intelligent life is not a given as life in general most likely is. Even advance life not including intelligence could be extremely rare and when we look at earth as example we can see that life would have been very limited without our moon, and that was just a random collision. We would also have seen a much faster life reset button if Jupiter and Saturn were not here to be the solar system's vacuum cleaners. Right now it is about every 70 million years, but what if it reset every 10 million or less? Lets add in a liquid core and so many other variables that go beyond just planets within a habitable zone.

If the current structure of the universe with planets started about 9 billion years ago earth in all its life creating perfection has only made one life form that reached the point of technology or has made it off the planet in anyway in the past 4.5 billion years, so that isn't very good odds that a planet did it once in 1/2 the life of the universe in its current stable condition. And the interesting part is we are not even proof either in too much intelligence just might end up being a bad evolutionary trait in the end and it dies out like other bad traits.

So in the end the odds are not there to suggest techno level intelligence happens much at all. Evolution doesn't need it, ever... and that right there kind of puts a dampener on the possibilities.

a reply to: cooperton

No I'm basing this off the fact that the equations don't fit, and the dark matter (non-existent matter) that they are so desperately trying to find is repeatably unfounded.

So, we should have all the answers to the universe right? Us, this primitive species that still believe in fairy tales and even sometimes, if the right person comes along, living messiahs.

Because we do not know everything about the universe, does not mean we never eill. We know far more about the universe than we did 100 years ago. We know there are around 100 billion galaxies in the universe, which means billions of stars and planets. The chances of some form of life is high.

And like I said before. I believe we will find some of life in our own galaxy.

You're so quick triggered you can't even respond intelligibly to the point that I made. I'm here to debate science, not religion.

I am not triggered. I have seen your other posts in other threads regarding religon and the universe. I know exactly who I am dealing with here.

a reply to: Jimy718

Oh Jim, so cute
So, let’s throw the laws of physics into the bin

It’s great to talk like you know but it’s better you know what you are talking about

Problem with cloud formation is gravity and thermodynamics
All I have to do the show your little link is junk is find it

nst gravity. However, calculating the rotational energy of SDC335 by assuming that it is a homogenous rotating sphere with an angular velocity ω = 1 km/s/pc, we estimated that it is ∼ 10 times smaller than its kinetic energy as measured from the velocity dispersion. In other words, it is negligible.
Article 5.4 page 7 is all a guess

Just read how many times “Assume” is written in your awesome scientific doctrine

I am going to assume you saw lots of big words and was baffled by them, then assumed it sounded sciencie enough that most people would assume it’s very clever and assume it’s legitimate science
Now I will assume in your ignorance I don’t know what I am talking about and I assume you didn’t read the article, assume you didn’t understand it and I will assume you won’t read the article.
And finally the very last paragraph is not to be missed, don’t assume that

Thanks, but getting bored of stupid links and people who have no comprehension of science pretending they do

It must be admitted that when top theoretical physicists start taking about "information" as a kind of additional component of spacetime there is certainly a suggestion there about structures including concepts that incorporate conscious understanding and order into a mathematical equation. And maybe the intelligent conceptual part establishes the odd constants we find in physics and the rest of our conveniently structured reality.

a reply to: Blue Shift

It must be admitted that when top theoretical physicists start taking about "information" as a kind of additional component of spacetime there is certainly a suggestion there about structures including concepts that incorporate conscious understanding and order into a mathematical equation.

As with the word "structure" when used in geology, the word "information" when used in physics has a meaning which can vary from that which is used by layfolk.

In physics, simply put, information is data about the state of a system.
en.wikipedia.org...

The conspiracy theorist in me likes to think that TPTB orchestrating disclosure told the scientists to do the math and come up with a number of civilizations that they can say that they're fairly confident must exist in our galaxy. And 36 is a pretty specific number (but then aren't they all?).