Extraterrestrial Civilisations in our own Galaxy

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm assuming the assumption of our uniqueness is highly flawed.

4000 exo planets found in 30 years and most of them are very recent, I'm sure as we train our eyes to see better we'll dial in our perception. Even then we're dealing with a very narrow spectrum... Everything must align and our instruments must be sensitive enough.

Giants and fast orbits are a lot easier to detect it would appear.

From what we’ve seen so far, planets overall huddle closer to their stars than the planets in our solar system.

We still detect distant planets via star dimness as they cross the 'face' of their parent correct?

Seems fairly obvious to me why we find giants on a fast orbit that sit closer to their star. Our data is far too incomplete to make any sound assumptions.

a reply to: Gothmog

What a bunch of hogwash that was.

First, you are misrepresenting what I said. Yes, you need all the "applicable" variables accounted for. But in your own example of getting hit by a meteor, what you were wearing has absolutely nothing to do with it and only adds additional unnecessary constraints. By your reasoning, if you had been hit by a meteor on that particular occasion but were wearing jeans instead of pajamas, you would call it a miss.

I find no evidence that Drake ever said his equation was anything but that. Citation please.

For how little you understand probability, and Drake, you have some nerve calling anyone ignorant.

Your understanding of the significance of Drakes equation is pitiful. Let me explain just how pitiful it is...

Drakes equation is one long string of variables. None are quantifiable. As such, they are proportional estimates. Yes, you could get a direct answer if you could accurately include every single data point possible. But that is not probability. If you have values for all the variables then its just simple math. That is not the point of Drakes equation. That is the exact opposite of what Drake proposed.

We don't know how many galaxies there are. Or how many stars. Or how many stars with planets. Or how many stars with planets that are in what 'we' consider the green zone. Or what percentage of those planets that developed life. Or what percentage of that life evolved to have intelligence. We don't know any of those figures. So we use an equation full of variables that offers a mathematical way of expressing the likelihood of life on another planet. It isn't a spot on calculation. It isn't meant to be. The whole purpose of Drakes equation, now pay attention because this is the important part, is to arrive at any conclusion other than zero.

Let me repeat that for the thick willed slug brained troglodytes among us.

The goal was to arrive at any conclusion other than zero.

It doesn't matter what the number actually is. The whole point is to answer the question, "Is there other intelligent life in the universe?" Any conclusion of Drakes equation that is not zero means the answer is YES. Not how many. Not where are they. Now what color are their pajamas. Just a simple yes or no.

And with the Defence now admitting about UAP's that they have no clue as to who they are and not of this world, have shown we are not alone, probably never been alone.

The Drake simulation (better description than an equation) does not really mean anything unless you have the correct values for all of it's variables. They are a guessing game, as we do not have enough experience with this universe to correctly fill them in.

What we do have, is a very extensive knowledge of the chemistry of stars. We know how they start with hydrogen, synthesize and burn helium and when they die and explode, they create all of the other elements we know, which are recycled countless times to produce other stars and planets.

This is how we know we cannot be alone. We see this process in every part of the known universe, and those chemicals are ultimately responsible for all of the molecules and crystals that make up our bodies.

There is no way we could be alone. Life itself is the stuff of stars and we are in the infancy of finding the inevitable proof of that.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

When I think about this i remember how our early civilizations had high tech in masonry but not in anything that would produce radio waves. And how we stayed that way for 10's of thousands of years. Only recently did we stumble upon electronic tech.

My point is that there is no reason why we couldn't have stayed the way we were for 100's of thousands of more years. Thinking that intelligent beings will always create electronic tech is foolish. For all we know there are many tech paths that never lead to electronics but are themselves very advanced.

There could be civilizations far more advanced in emotional, construction, farming, even mechanical tech out there that will never discover radio waves.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

What if life is so rare that it takes an entire universe just for one planet to even have a chance of life evolving?

Like the odds of life are 1 in infinitely. So it would take an infinite amount of planets to produce just one that has life?

a reply to: ntech

I like to think that if there is life than it's so far away no amount of tech no matter how advanced would allow us to ever detect each other. And that we humans will one day spread out across this solar system and into the milky way. Time will pass and we will lose contact. More time will pass and we will forget about each other. Even more time will pass and we will find each other again but we all think that the other is an alien.

Maybe that already happened and earth isn't our original home world? maybe we are in the forgetting about each other stage.
1000 years from now we will find life and test its dna and realize that it's us.

Maybe religions are just the story of when our ancestors arrived here on earth?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Asmodeus3

What if life is so rare that it takes an entire universe just for one planet to even have a chance of life evolving?

Like the odds of life are 1 in infinitely. So it would take an infinite amount of planets to produce just one that has life?

That's a good question to start with.
What if life is so rare so that we are alone or one of the very few species around.

To answer the question you need to define what life is. And be able to understand there are different forms of life that range from the most simple to the most complex.

A good starter is to have a look at Mars and Venus which most likely were able to sustain life long time ago having plenty of liguid water and oceans very similar to our own. I have created another thread where I am discussing the new findings in relation to salty water found on Mars. There is a good chance that Mars may still be able to sustain microbial life.

Then have a look at Europa one of the moons of Jupiter which is the target by all space agencies and especially NASA. The reason is that it contains 2-3 times the water here in Earth. We are taking about salty water and a high chance of Europa being able to sustain life at the moment we speak and perhaps there could be a an entire ecosystem underneath its icy surface.

Then start thinking of how water is formed. Sometime ago it was thought that water is rare but that turned out not to be true. There is plenty of hydrogen in the universe as it's the most abundant element and plenty of oxygen in local areas where previous generation stars have created it through nuclear fusion. The results are what we all know! Plenty of water as well as hydrogen peroxide.

originally posted by: myss427
And with the Defence now admitting about UAP's that they have no clue as to who they are and not of this world, have shown we are not alone, probably never been alone.

Whether we have been visited or not it's another conversation but I don't mind if you entertain this idea. Unidentified Aerial Phenomena is a broad term and doesn't necessarily mean visitations from extraterrestrial entities. It could be natural phenomena, human advanced technology, and some extraterrestrial activity.

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

a reply to: Asmodeus3

It could be explained if all the alien civilisations are at a similar technological level to ourselves, especially if FTL travel is not possible.

There's also the possibility that, due to the enormity of space, alien civilisations only visit Earth every 1 million years or so - and all the hundreds of previous visits have failed to show any sign of any sentient species.

But also, we know from Earth, that only one in several hundred billion species that evolve ever develop technology. Life may be abundant, but there is no reason to suppose technology is.

In terms of what Enrico Fermi said which I quote from wikipedia (if he did indeed say this)

en.wikipedia.org...

The conversation moved on to other topics, until during lunch Fermi blurted out, "But where is everybody?

It's probably a way of initiating conversation and some reaction. I don't think the 'paradox' term describes well the situation. It's not a paradox that we haven't seen anyone yet as we are rather technologically primitive and there are several factors that haven't been included in the conversations between Fermi and his colleagues but are now well known.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

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

a reply to: Asmodeus3

It could be explained if all the alien civilisations are at a similar technological level to ourselves, especially if FTL travel is not possible.

There's also the possibility that, due to the enormity of space, alien civilisations only visit Earth every 1 million years or so - and all the hundreds of previous visits have failed to show any sign of any sentient species.

But also, we know from Earth, that only one in several hundred billion species that evolve ever develop technology. Life may be abundant, but there is no reason to suppose technology is.

Also, trying to communicate with radio waves is futile. The strength of the signal obeys the inverse square law and you can imagine how unlikely is that another civilisation that lives 300 light years away (close distance) can miss your signal if they are there and listening at this particular time. They have to be able to isolate it from the background noise. Probably impossible.

As a science guy, I have no doubt that there is other life in our galaxy and the universe as a whole.

Until we can harness quantum entanglement, we will never know for sure. (Maybe we don't want to?)

originally posted by: fos13
As a science guy, I have no doubt that there is other life in our galaxy and the universe as a whole.

Until we can harness quantum entanglement, we will never know for sure. (Maybe we don't want to?)

How quantum entanglement will help in this case? I understand that sending quantum signals maybe a way of communication with them.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't understand how crop circles work. From the Chilibolton experience, there is some kind of holographic angle to it. The crop circle a year before has some clue if you really want to know.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't understand how crop circles work. From the Chilibolton experience, there is some kind of holographic angle to it. The crop circle a year before has some clue if you really want to know.

You could explain what a crop circle is and how is related to extraterrestrials trying to communicate with us.

I'm sure they are out there but so far and few in-between it most likely doesn't matter.

The drake equation starts to drop off here...

f(l) : The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.

f(i) : The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.

We need to look at what it takes to make advance life at the level we have on earth and not just life in general.

So we need to ask the question why is advance life here on earth and not just simple levels, so here is a list of reasons that if anyone was missing we would not be here today.

1. Goldilocks zone - check
2. Good size and has water- check
3. liquid core - check
3. Big ass moon caused by a random collision- check
4. Has vacuums called Saturn and Jupiter to allow reset to go as long as 70 million years - check

Missing any of this and advance life is doomed, so how does that all effect drakes equation?

Now we have another big one... 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. The earth is half that age and in 4.5 billion year the earth has produced just one intelligent life that has at least went to the moon... just one...

Not good odds I would say...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I'm sure they are out there but so far and few in-between it most likely doesn't matter.

The drake equation starts to drop off here...

f(l) : The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.

f(i) : The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.

We need to look at what it takes to make advance life at the level we have on earth and not just life in general.

So we need to ask the question why is advance life here on earth and not just simple levels, so here is a list of reasons that if anyone was missing we would not be here today.

1. Goldilocks zone - check
2. Good size and has water- check
3. liquid core - check
3. Big ass moon caused by a random collision- check
4. Has vacuums called Saturn and Jupiter to allow reset to go as long as 70 million years - check

Missing any of this and advance life is doomed, so how does that all effect drakes equation?

Now we have another big one... 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. The earth is half that age and in 4.5 billion year the earth has produced just one intelligent life that has at least went to the moon... just one...

Not good odds I would say...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.