ET Likely Doesn't Exist, Finds Math Model

From discovery.com:
ET Likely Doesn't Exist, Finds Math Model

April 21, 2008 -- Earth-like planets have relatively short windows of opportunity for life to evolve, making it highly doubtful intelligent beings exist elsewhere in the universe, according to newly published research based on a mathematical probability model.

Given the amount of time it has taken for human beings to evolve on Earth and the fact that the planet will no longer be habitable in a billion years or so when the sun brightens, Andrew Watson, with the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia in Norwich, says we are probably alone.

dsc.discovery.com...

What a bunch of bull#! It's just our government trying to keep us all ignorant so the New World Order has less resistance. I really find it hard to believe that an educated person would believe we are alone in the UNIVERSE. The entire UNIVERSE!!!

Yes since he has been to so many of those planets, and watched them over billions of years.

The points of saying these things are often self centered and near sighted.

Why would you produce such a report?

One reason is to boost your own importance, if the universe is teaming with life, it really lowers your value as an individual. Sometimes this idea is espoused by dogmatic religious people who seek to prove that they are God's special little pets and so special he didn't need any other life. Others use it to illistrate how truely inteeligent we are since there could be no other intelligence in the universe. Either way, its very self centered.

The other type of people I have seen make these studies are thos who, like Newton, are not capible of looking at past thoeries and seeing how new data often comes to light, assuming they have all availible data. Newton invented a new type of physics to explain the wobble in the orbits of the planets, but where is data stopped he proclaimed it was the invisible hand of God holding them there, instead of admitting he didn't have all the answers.

Why do you present this material? I am geussing its because you think aliens and UFOs are all fake, and this article said what you wanted to hear?

I've been pasteing this alot lately, I've been needing it myself....

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

The most repeated command in the bible is "fear not!". Fear is the tool of evil, chaose, and destruction, you must not fear, not even beings with technology millions of years beyond what you have being in the sky above.

So you're going to use a theory to prove that other life doesn't exsist?

I'm sorry if I don't believe everything MSS (main stream science) tells me.
Remember, they have grants that they need. A scientist who says there are UFO's and aliens exsist, they aren't going to get much grant money.









[edit on 24-4-2008 by Terrk]

Total poppy cock. This is all on the massive assumption that humanity evolved from a single celled organism, which is in itself highly improbable.

Whenever I see these kinds of "report or evidence" then I simply need to shake my head. Scientists, scholars, so-called bright people.

Based on the model, Watson said each stage of evolution had at most a 10 percent chance of occurring, and each development could manifest only after each proceeding step. Further, the evolutionary stepping-stones are spaced evenly throughout Earth's history, Watson added.

It's amazing how closed minded scientists could really believe in a mathematic model with so many unknown variables and factors. We are now talking about only taking some (still incomplete) empirical data of one lousy tiny planet in the whole universe for drafting up these models.

Mankind has not even really explored our own solar system for one (or at least not publicly known). IF only one of the many planets, asteroiids or moons of our solar system has one once-cell organism then all these models can be thrown in the trashcan. Besides, emphasize again, the empirical data of planet Earth is still incomplete and point of discussions.

Interesting question.

Now, on one hand, it can very well be the truth that we are the only ones in this universe. After all, what evidence is there that there are other civilizations out there? Or even life in any form? We know that bacteria can live in the most strange places on our world - but can they on other worlds?

At this point in time, we simply don't have enough evidence to conclude anything. We don't know what the odds are in a universe. Is life the exception or the rule? A good start would be first be to find life on other places first, before any speculation is made on whether intelligent life can evolve elsewhere.

This does not mean that UFO:s (or "the phenomena") doesn't exist - they could very well be other things than aliens from another planet. People are experiencing something, but it doesn't mean they are extraterrestrials.

However, I do not agree that any calculation can be made made right now about if there are or not intelligent civilizations. For that matter, we could be the most developed of them all.

(Personally I believe that the possibility of intelligent alien life elsewhere in this universe is greater than them not existing, but I like to stay open minded .)

Here is some math for you.
Fun Drake equation calculator
From pbs.org
your own ET civilizations calculator

Use the Drake Equation to make your own estimate of the number of communicative civilizations in the Milky Way.

Using his own equation,
Frank Drake's current estimate is 10,000.

peace

edit to: change the quote to external

[edit on 25-4-2008 by Zeptepi]

Originally posted by HellHound63S
Why do you present this material? I am geussing its because you think aliens and UFOs are all fake, and this article said what you wanted to hear?

No, actually I don't personally buy this, not based on what he is saying but based on other evidence. What I immediately thought of when I read the article was the book Probability 1. I havent read it, only seen the interview with the author in the movie Out of the Blue. I'd like to see where these theories differ though.

reply to post by littlemoe


Hmm, well thanks for some additional info, still kind of scant though.

So you don't buy THIS article, but the general idea you DO buy?

Based on WHAT evidence? That NASA is SOOOOO honest, and would imeadiatly show us if there were trees and critters on Mars? That because there are no aliens landing on the lawns of government buildings everywhere, coming out saying "take me to your leader" that they aren't here? Proof of anything is a myth, and evidence merely allows you to make a better guess.

1st time you see a real UFO, government black-ops or ETs it will change your mind, but like you can't win the lottery if you don't play, you'll never see one if you don't look!

reply to post by HellHound63S


While it's true that science has become quite close minded, it is due rather to their rejection of the role of God more than anything. They require mechanistic means to somehow understand the impossible complexity of the universe.

It also completely ludicrous to call the greatest physicist and mathematician of all time, Sir Isaac Newton close minded. This is the man who invented calculus and invented physics basically. Try inventing your own new branches of science and mathematics, that are foundational to all other sciences, by yourself in your spare time. Good luck in the effort.

Newton's physics are used everyday by working engineers. Einstein, by comparison is rarely invoked, unless you work at a particle accelerator.

reply to post by littlemoe


What exactly are you trying to say littlemoe? You paste some text and a link from discovery channel - but you say nothing on the topic yourself in the initial post! And it appears in your follow up post that you know less than an ant on the topic.

Did you just want to drop a bomb and watch the *SNIP* fight between members from a safe distance?

It certainly seems that way. Welcome to ATS littlemoe. Nice start!

Thumbs down for your apparent agenda

Mod Note: read this link for tips on civility and decorum:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 25-4-2008 by NGC2736]

Theories will never be anything else than that, untill it is proven or disproven by.... Facts.

Math only suggest this theory based on what we know, and that is just too little to say one way or this way.
I dont see how any one could make an relevant calculation on the basis of one planet, on the understanding on what we know how life evolves, there will be too many errors in a calculation like that.

In all probability his calculations are wrong, and to be fair, 99% wrong.

That article is hogswash. It bases all its ideas on an earth like planet. Now,I could be wrong,but it doesn't have to be an "earth like planet" to support life. You could have seas of sulphiric acid on some planets that have sprouted life for all we know.

It's kind of funny really.
This scientifically "proves" (No it doesn't ) that there's a low chance of earth-like planets because of lack of conditions for evolution...

Under our criteria only.
At the same time using the same theory, it can be scientifically "proven" (Can't be yet) that we can not be the only planet with life in the universe.

First part, "theoretical" low probability.
Second part, more of the same.

I for one believe the universe is far too big for us to be the only ones here. However, I do not believe that aliens have been here as many times as people claim and think. I more believe that most objects are either man made, or are a misidentified object. That's just me though.

Wow, what the geebus is that guy on about? If we go by his theory, then we shouldn't exist at all!

I shouldn't be typing this post. Damn, I knew didn't exist, this fabulous theory proves it.

Thing is, the universe is so big, there's liitle chance we will make definite, meaningful contact with other life (yes, I know, barring all the UFO here-say). Intelligent life like us may have existed 1 billion years ago, or 1 billion years into the future; but by the time ours or their signal reaches us, neither civilization will be listening.

That article is hogswash. It bases all its ideas on an earth like planet. Now,I could be wrong,but it doesn't have to be an "earth like planet" to support life. You could have seas of sulphiric acid on some planets that have sprouted life for all we know.

the main problem is we only have 1 data point for life in the entire universe. However 1 data point is better than none. Its easy to say "we dont know" and cling to the hope intelligent life is common but i think thats rather wishfull thinking if we look at the evidence on earth.

Take your acidic life statement. We find organisms in extremely acidic conditions on earth the problem is when we test the inside of these organisms they are ph neutral which tells us they did not originate in those conditions but came from "nicer" conditions and adpated over time. It would seem if we had a planet of extreme high acidic content from the start that life is unlikely to start at all. Going by our single data point of life on earth

Technological intelligence has existed on earth for about 0.01% of its history so if we observe another planet in the hz of a star like sol the chances of seeing a tech intelligent life form are extremely low infact the most likely thing we will see is a planet with microbial life as complex life has only existed for around 10% of the earths history. So we have a 90% chance of seeing nothing very interesting.

On tech intelligence itself we can ask the question. Is technological intelligence a convergent feature of evolution? Well the experiments have already been done they are called africa, south america, new zealand etc the continents or major land masses seperated by oceans for up to 200 million years. But only on 1 did tech intelligence arise. When humans arrived in new zealand we found no animal occupying the tech intelligence niche despite the fact it had 200 million years to develop it and no interferencve from us. Thats alot longer than the 3 million years i took our brains to triple in size turning us into a tech civilization. Same with south america none of the new world mamals developed tech intelligence despite having plent of time and the correct "raw materials"

the only conclusion i think we can draw is tech intelligence is not a convergent feature of evolution and is not inevitable even if life exists on other planets. Infact i think it tells us tech intelligence is extremely rare.

this is all based on our 1 data point for life that we have. What we really need is another datapoint for life- even microbial life from another planet would be very interesting to develop our theories.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by yeti101]

Who cares what is in 'astrobiology magazine'? It's not even peer-reviewed is it? Seems more like a way for NASA to generate income and, as someone suggested, potentially produce propaganda.

Given the amount of time it has taken for human beings to evolve on Earth and the fact that the planet will no longer be habitable in a billion years or so when the sun brightens, Andrew Watson, with the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia in Norwich, says we are probably alone.

We do not know how abiogenesis occurs because the only way we'd know we know with certainty is to actually produce life.

Given this, we have no idea of the conditions required for abiogenesis, let alone the evolution of intelligent life.

We therefore have no idea how many planets exist on which there is life, and no idea how many on which intelligent life exists.

NASA is therefore publishing material that, with the least bit of reflection of the ignorance of relevant informatoion, is demonstrably garbage.

OK, some will argue that's the generous interpretation. At the other end of spectrum, it could be intentional very (emphasize very) thinly veiled "scientific" propaganda.

Of course, the whole thing is premised on the big bang theory anyway. Even Rogern Penrose is well aware the myriad other theories -- I listened to him talking about them. It's funny how those who follow theories are often so much more dogmatic about their truth than those who put forward cases for them in the first place.

reply to post by MrChipps


No offence, but it seems to me that both yours and my government needn't try to keep us ignorant, it is a job that human beings are quite capable of doing on their own!!!

Of course this is just a model, and until we can go out into the universe and get some "DATA" and get a proper model for solar system formation, then this is just another toy model.

Is life a natural consequence of solar system formation? The answers out there, if you pardon the pun!

Still 50/50 for me. What is interesting from this discussion is how many people really really need to want to believe!

[edit on 25-4-2008 by timelike]

Originally posted by HellHound63S
reply to post by littlemoe

 

So you don't buy THIS article, but the general idea you DO buy?

No, I don't buy the general idea either. I believe more in the probability 1 theory, though to be honest its not because I understand the math of either equation.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
What exactly are you trying to say littlemoe? You paste some text and a link from discovery channel - but you say nothing on the topic yourself in the initial post! And it appears in your follow up post that you know less than an ant on the topic.
Did you just want to drop a bomb and watch the sh*t fight between members from a safe distance?

It certainly seems that way. Welcome to ATS littlemoe. Nice start!

Thumbs down for your apparent agenda

Didn't mean to offend you. No, I didn't mean to start a fight between ATS members. I had a stance on the topic but didn't state it. Personally I think that whoever would make an equation like this discounts all other evidence of ET life visiting earth and when that happens I tend to discount whatever they say, mostly because I am guessing they are biased. Of course that makes me biased too. But because I don't understand math at all I was hoping someone who knew what they were doing would make a real comparison of the two, the variables they considered etc.