My thoughts on Aliens.... (from outerspace) [Archive]

View Full Version : My thoughts on Aliens.... (from outerspace)

iilluzioN

04-20-2009, 05:34 PM

The universe is too big to not have life all over the place.....

If our government were hiding evidence about it they have good reason too....

Humans will never be able to get along with thier own species, what makes people think we'd get along with another one? Anyone who thinks we would all of a sudden join hands and unite in peace and harmony because some alien comes down and says hi is a moron. It would just give people another reason to hate and kill. :depressed

If aliens did come and see what was going on here they probably left and told all the other aliens out there to stay away from this place...

"WARNING: This planet contains an extremely violent race that reproduces uncrontrolably, destroys everything it touches, and spends the majority of its time engaging in tribal warefare"

Imagine how the religious jihad freaks would react?

"Those infidels from the sky must be converted or killed" :nope

I'm a firm believer that there are spacefaring civilizations out there but most likely they saw the monsters that inhabit this world and left in a hurry and are probably hoping we never learn how to get off our own planet, and if we do, they won't allow us to expand to far...

Former NASA Astronaut Edgar Mitchell said QUOTE

"Our destiny, in my opinion, and we might as well get started with it, is [to] become a part of the planetary community. ... We should be ready to reach out beyond our planet and beyond our solar system to find out what is really going on out there."

"The universe that we live in is much more wondrous, exciting, complex and far-reaching than we were ever able to know up to this point in time."

Summers

04-20-2009, 06:55 PM

I've always had this theory that the spacecraft we see are, like, teenage aliens. That explains why they're such shitty drivers and why they come here just to gawk at us. I bet they get grounded when they get home and their dad-aliens check the mileage on the ships.

Summers

04-20-2009, 06:58 PM

Oh, and I know this guy (I'll call him RhaynDamGeye) who used to work in military intelligence and had a security clearance and one of his higher ups told him basically yes, we're hiding something in Area 51.

TDMVPDPOY

04-20-2009, 07:09 PM

well we dont have the technology to decrease the time gap of traveling in space, and out bodies break down too quick after 100yrs, when the life expectancy for most humans is around 70-80yrs....

Nbadan

04-20-2009, 07:33 PM

Clones maybe?

IronMexican

04-20-2009, 07:35 PM

Send them back to Mexico.

Many PackYao

04-20-2009, 07:36 PM

balli

04-20-2009, 10:00 PM

What I wonder is if intelligent alien races have blues music and if so, if it has the same semi-depressing connotations that it does here? I mean, if there was emotional and thus intelligent life that communicated using sound, it only makes sense that they'd have music... and since musical notes are all based on math, they have a certain universal quality to them. And since there's something inherently sad sounding about the mathematically well defined blues scales, does that mean there are blues musicians busy bitching about their alien women-folks, billions of light years away from here? I think so.

Happy 420.

BlackSwordsMan

04-20-2009, 10:27 PM

Haven't you seen south park? Earth is now blocked from aliens entering our atmosphere.

Blake

04-20-2009, 11:31 PM

JudynTX

04-21-2009, 07:34 AM

Haven't you seen south park? Earth is now blocked from aliens entering our atmosphere.

:lmao :lmao

BacktoBasics

04-21-2009, 09:16 AM

No doubt there is life elsewhere. To deny the existence of outer planetary life is not only stupid but highly irresponsible. There are too many reasons to count as to why information would be held from the public but religion would be a good start.

However I don't think our government has a tenth of the evidence the conspiracy theorists think they do. I'd guess that 99.5% of the sitings brushed off by the government can either be explained naturally or they're our own craft and technology.

I think instances like the lights and craft in Phoenix and the lights and craft witnessed in Stephensville are perfect examples of our own technology being mistaken for alien craft. This shit happened left and right when the Stealth bomber was going thru R&D.

The Stephensville incident really stands out to me. They have proof of the craft. It was captured and recorded on radar (which is now available for anyone to see). It moved at inhuman speeds in the direction of Bush's ranch and not once did the military scramble any jets. No subsequent military activity after any of the multiple events in that area. They knew exactly what was up there. There answer to weeks and months of sitings witnessed and recorded was a simple "no comment".

JoeChalupa

04-21-2009, 09:20 AM

I don't believe in little green men.

z0sa

04-21-2009, 11:35 AM

there's no life out there, not intelligent at least.

BacktoBasics

04-21-2009, 12:01 PM

I don't believe in little green men.Neither do I.

there's no life out there, not intelligent at least.based on what? Your vast understanding of the size of the universe in comparison to the mathematical probability of like planets.

FaithInOne

04-21-2009, 12:05 PM

If there are any aliens reading this, hook me up. I will go back with you.

50Bestspurever

04-21-2009, 12:09 PM

Theories of aliens sound more convincing to me than a man being born to a virgin and then coming back to life.

phyzik

04-21-2009, 12:16 PM

I don't believe in little green men.

there's no life out there, not intelligent at least.

Seriously?

Do you even realize how big just our galaxy is? Then do you realize how many OTHER galaxies there are?

http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/06-07/art/galaxies1.06-09-18.jpg

Each one of those dots of light is a galaxy.

In our own Milky Way there are around 100 billion stars. even if only 1 in 10 of those stars have just 1 planet orbiting them that leaves alot of potential for another earth-like planet. Then factor in each of those other galaxies, who may have even more stars than our milky way. The odds are so grossly against "no other life" that you would have to be a moron to think we are alone in the universe.

A better bet would be that we will never make contact with that other life simply because of the huge distances between our respective worlds.

JoeChalupa

04-21-2009, 12:20 PM

Theories of aliens sound more convincing to me than a man being born to a virgin and then coming back to life.

And there it is.

FaithInOne

04-21-2009, 12:21 PM

BacktoBasics

04-21-2009, 12:22 PM

And there it is.:lmao

JoeChalupa

04-21-2009, 12:22 PM

Seriously?

Do you even realize how big just our galaxy is? Then do you realize how many OTHER galaxies there are?

http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/06-07/art/galaxies1.06-09-18.jpg

Each one of those dots of light is a galaxy.

In our own Milky Way there are around 100 billion stars. even if only 1 in 10 of those stars have just 1 planet orbiting them that leaves alot of potential for another earth-like planet. Then factor in each of those other galaxies, who may have even more stars than our milky way. The odds are so grossly against "no other life" that you would have to be a moron to think we are alone in the universe.

A better bet would be that we will never make contact with that other life simply because of the huge distances between our respective worlds.

I was being sarcastic. Yes, I do believe there is life out there somewhere for the very reasons you stated.

BacktoBasics

04-21-2009, 12:29 PM

I was being sarcastic. Yes, I do believe there is life out there somewhere for the very reasons you stated.Just not green

z0sa

04-21-2009, 10:40 PM

based on what? Your vast understanding of the size of the universe in comparison to the mathematical probability of like planets.

Seriously?

Do you even realize how big just our galaxy is? Then do you realize how many OTHER galaxies there are?

The odds are so grossly against "no other life" that you would have to be a moron to think we are alone in the universe.

A better bet would be that we will never make contact with that other life simply because of the huge distances between our respective worlds.

jesus, reread my statement:

there's no life out there, not intelligent at least.

there is no life imho, but I'm conceding due to those same probabilities that some life exists, its just not intelligent.

Why would I say there is no life and concede there some does exist? Because I'm sure its impossible that life naturally arose even on earth (the odds are probably more grossly against it) - but that is not exactly the most popular scientific opinion, nor the subject matter at hand and I'm glad of it. So to stay with the popular scientific opinion, I shall concede life, however simple, exists in the Void, just nothing with a brain like ours (i mean, think of it - even a chimpanzee/dolphin's intelligence could never get him off this rock).

So yeah, if some god or ethereal space being is sticking life on planets, we'll find it eventually. Otherwise, i think whatever stuck us here left us alone and that's that. Humans are better from it, we destroy ourselves and would destroy an alien civilization just as fast (or vice versa after they saw we were incredibly incompetent).

BacktoBasics

04-22-2009, 08:43 AM

Fair enough. I still think its idiotic, arrogant even, to think that we're the most intelligent life out there.

Summers

04-22-2009, 10:27 AM

The only way "we" never make contact is if we kill ousrelves/planet before technology reaches the point where we can branch off.

Anything the human mind can imagine is possible; it will be reality one day. The whole star trek thing, that will be reality one day. Us living on planet Earth and carrying out our meaningless lives will be no different than the cavemen who sat around fires their entire lives and beat sticks together.

You're fun to hang out with, aren't you?

Fair enough. I still think its idiotic, arrogant even, to think that we're the most intelligent life out there.

They do, after all, have better space ships than we do.

FaithInOne

04-22-2009, 10:52 AM

Tell me about it. I can't get away from the asshole no matter how hard I try :depressed

Blake

04-22-2009, 11:30 AM

The odds are so grossly against "no other life" that you would have to be a moron to think we are alone in the universe.

have you done the math?

what exactly are those odds?

Blake

04-22-2009, 11:31 AM

Fair enough. I still think its idiotic, arrogant even, to think that we're the most intelligent life out there.

why is it always "arrogant" to think we are alone?

z0sa

04-22-2009, 11:43 AM

Humans have been blessed with an extremely powerful mind, but with all our supposed knowledge nowadays, "star trek" is in the distant future for humanity still. Which is why a "sub-human" intelligence creature would never get off their perspective rock, or care to.

I believe it will be impossible to ever contact any aliens anyway, due to human lifespans (basically what phyzik said). Going the speed of light might still take a thousand years should an alien world live out there somewhere very far away. Let's hope nanomachines really let us live hundreds of years.

BacktoBasics

04-22-2009, 11:56 AM

why is it always "arrogant" to think we are alone?The whole "we are the greatest most advanced civilization" load of bullshit is rooted in the typical arrogance we find in so many self-entitled Americans.

You shouldn't need to see the statistic to know that the mathematical probability of a more evolved civilization is highly likely. I know I know common sense is always with a grain of salt when it comes to your logic.

phyzik

04-22-2009, 12:27 PM

have you done the math?

what exactly are those odds?

ever heard of the Drake equation?

using that equation, even with a fraction of 0.1 for each parameter means there are, at least according to the equation, about 20 other intelligent life forms just in our Galaxy alone.

Is the formula perfect? of course not, it could be way off, but its still the best mathematical equation we have to determine life on other planets. The problem is it cant be an exact math because we really don't know exactly how many planets are out there.

BacktoBasics

04-22-2009, 12:33 PM

ever heard of the Drake equation?Beat me to it.

z0sa

04-22-2009, 01:13 PM

Isn't the main problem with the Drake equation we have yet to find any hospitable planets besides our own?

How can you factor hospitable planets per star, if we have not yet discovered one besides our own?

Another factor in the equation is that the number of civilizations is relative to the amount of stars formed. :huh

Seemingly another problem, potentially much greater, is that if a hospitable planet is located, chances are very much against an intelligent life form arising. Natural selection does not factor in developing intelligence, only the biological ability to survive. A semi intelligent being without the ability to survive is much more likely than one who is. Additionally, in the small chance these lifeforms lived, the aeons of time are too great. They were destroyed tens of millions of years ago by ______. Unless we happen to roll by in the Enterprise, we'll never know they existed nowadays. It's the equivalent of human-like beings living in the dinosaur age - we'd have never dominated, and all that would be left to find now would be the dust of our bones ie nothing.

BacktoBasics

04-22-2009, 01:22 PM

Isn't the main problem with the Drake equation we have yet to find any hospitable planets besides our own?

How can you factor hospitable planets per star, if we have not yet discovered one besides our own?

That's not a flaw in the equation its a by-product of the limitation of the current technical state. Has no bearing on probability.

That's like say "there aren't undiscovered species in the ocean because we haven't found them".

z0sa

04-22-2009, 01:40 PM

That's not a flaw in the equation its a by-product of the limitation of the current technical state. Has no bearing on probability.

That's like say "there aren't undiscovered species in the ocean because we haven't found them".

It's probable because of all the documented life forms in the ocean. We can reasonably base our assumptions on that.

Now, we cannot reasonably base our assumptions, ie any numbers, on the proportion of earth-like planets in our galaxy compared to non-hospitable. We don't have enough knowledge to accurately make a prediction. You can't base it off our solar system - telescopes have proven no earth like planets exist in any other visible systems.

The formula is correct, its just what numbers do you punch in?

Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Thus the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind. As T.J. Watson states:[13]

The Drake equation consists of a large number of probabilities multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between 0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are completely unknown, making the result worse than useless.

phyzik

04-22-2009, 01:51 PM

Isn't the main problem with the Drake equation we have yet to find any hospitable planets besides our own?

Funny you should mention that......

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2009/pr-15-09.html

Well-known exoplanet researcher Michel Mayor today announced the discovery of the lightest exoplanet found so far. The planet, “e”, in the famous system Gliese 581, is only about twice the mass of our Earth. The team also refined the orbit of the planet Gliese 581 d, first discovered in 2007, placing it well within the habitable zone, where liquid water oceans could exist. These amazing discoveries are the outcome of more than four years of observations using the most successful low-mass-exoplanet hunter in the world, the HARPS spectrograph attached to the 3.6-metre ESO telescope at La Silla, Chile.

“The holy grail of current exoplanet research is the detection of a rocky, Earth-like planet in the ‘habitable zone’ — a region around the host star with the right conditions for water to be liquid on a planet’s surface”, says Michel Mayor from the Geneva Observatory, who led the European team to this stunning breakthrough.

Planet Gliese 581 e orbits its host star – located only 20.5 light-years away in the constellation Libra (“the Scales”) — in just 3.15 days. “With only 1.9 Earth-masses, it is the least massive exoplanet ever detected and is, very likely, a rocky planet”, says co-author Xavier Bonfils from Grenoble Observatory.

Being so close to its host star, the planet is not in the habitable zone. But another planet in this system appears to be. From previous observations — also obtained with the HARPS spectrograph at ESO’s La Silla Observatory and announced two years ago — this star was known to harbour a system with a Neptune-sized planet (ESO 30/05) and two super-Earths (ESO 22/07). With the discovery of Gliese 581 e, the planetary system now has four known planets, with masses of about 1.9 (planet e), 16 (planet b), 5 (planet c), and 7 Earth-masses (planet d). The planet furthest out, Gliese 581 d, orbits its host star in 66.8 days. “Gliese 581 d is probably too massive to be made only of rocky material, but we can speculate that it is an icy planet that has migrated closer to the star,” says team member Stephane Udry. The new observations have revealed that this planet is in the habitable zone, where liquid water could exist. “‘d’ could even be covered by a large and deep ocean — it is the first serious 'water world' candidate,” continued Udry.

The gentle pull of an exoplanet as it orbits the host star introduces a tiny wobble in the star’s motion — only about 7 km/hour, corresponding to brisk walking speed — that can just be detected on Earth with today’s most sophisticated technology. Low-mass red dwarf stars such as Gliese 581 are potentially fruitful hunting grounds for low-mass exoplanets in the habitable zone. Such cool stars are relatively faint and their habitable zones lie close in, where the gravitational tug of any orbiting planet found there would be stronger, making the telltale wobble more pronounced. Even so, detecting these tiny signals is still a challenge, and the discovery of Gliese 581 e and the refinement of Gliese 581 d’s orbit were only possible due to HARPS’s unique precision and stability.

“It is amazing to see how far we have come since we discovered the first exoplanet around a normal star in 1995 — the one around 51 Pegasi,” says Mayor. “The mass of Gliese 581 e is 80 times less than that of 51 Pegasi b. This is tremendous progress in just 14 years.”

The astronomers are confident that they can still do better. “With similar observing conditions an Earth-like planet located in the middle of the habitable zone of a red dwarf star could be detectable,” says Bonfils. “The hunt continues.”
Notes

This discovery was announced today at the JENAM conference during the European Week of Astronomy & Space Science, which is taking place at the University of Hertfordshire, UK. The results have also been submitted for publication in the research journal Astronomy & Astrophysics (“The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets: XVIII. An Earth-mass planet in the GJ 581 planetary system”, by Mayor et al., 2009).

The team is composed of M. Mayor, S. Udry, C. Lovis, F. Pepe and D. Queloz (Geneva Observatory, Switzerland), X. Bonfils, T. Forveille , X. Delfosse, H. Beust and C. Perrier (LAOG, France), N. C. Santos (Centro de Astrofisica,Universidade de Porto), F. Bouchy (IAP, Paris, France) and J.-L. Bertaux (Service d’Aéronomie du CNRS, Verrières-le-Buisson, France).

ESO, the European Southern Observatory, is the foremost intergovernmental astronomy organisation in Europe. It is supported by 14 countries: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. ESO carries out an ambitious programme focused on the design, construction and operation of powerful ground-based observing facilities enabling astronomers to make important scientific discoveries. ESO also plays a leading role in promoting and organising cooperation in astronomical research. ESO operates three unique world-class observing sites in the Atacama Desert region of Chile: La Silla, Paranal and Chajnantor.

-----------------------------------------------

You see, its not that the planets are not out there, its that its just really hard to see them from the distances we are looking at.

z0sa

04-22-2009, 02:01 PM

^ see above. no way to quantify the proportion of hospitable to non hospitable planets as of yet. We're not sure if even that planet is truly hospitable.

BacktoBasics

04-22-2009, 02:03 PM

It's probable because of all the documented life forms in the ocean. We can reasonably base our assumptions on that.

Huh what?!? The general consensus is that there are potentially millions of undiscovered species in our oceans. Less than 10% of the worlds oceans have been explored. Its widely accepted scientifically and typically accepted by the average ignorant Joe because its not outer worldly.

Insert space travel or far away places and it just doesn't seem to compute with the typical laymen.

BacktoBasics

04-22-2009, 02:07 PM

They've found candidates for life like ours having only explored the equivalent of one grain of sand to all the earths soil. That relation of size is so tiny that the numerical percentage would probably extend hundreds of miles.

"they haven't even scratched the surface" would be the largest understatement ever in the scientific community.

lefty

04-22-2009, 02:20 PM

I met an Alien once.

He was pretty cool

z0sa

04-22-2009, 02:49 PM

Huh what?!? The general consensus is that there are potentially millions of undiscovered species in our oceans. Less than 10% of the worlds oceans have been explored. Its widely accepted scientifically and typically accepted by the average ignorant Joe because its not outer worldly.

Insert space travel or far away places and it just doesn't seem to compute with the typical laymen.

the ocean teems with life because its on the only known planet supporting life. It's completely apples to oranges to compare space to the unexplored depths of the ocean. There's proof of life in the oceans, there's none in space.

BackStabber

04-22-2009, 02:53 PM

I'm pretty sure there is something out there somewhere and it would be pretty incredible if we found it before I leave.

DarkReign

04-22-2009, 04:19 PM

I'm pretty sure there is something out there somewhere and it would be pretty incredible if we found it before I leave.

If it doesnt happen before or on December 12, 2012, its never going to happen.

Damn you, Mayans!

http://www.johnsimonds.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/kirk-yelling-at-kahn-300x274.jpg

Blake

04-22-2009, 05:16 PM

You shouldn't need to see the statistic to know that the mathematical probability of a more evolved civilization is highly likely. I know I know common sense is always with a grain of salt when it comes to your logic.

I'll go ahead and disagree and ask for your statistic.

Common sense with you says you don't really have one.

DarkReign

04-22-2009, 05:50 PM

Humanity has always placed itself at the center of importance.

We're the center of the universe...nope.
Ok, our solar system is the center of the universe...uh-uh
OK, OK our existence is the only one of its kind in the universe...jury is still out.

I mean really, when it comes to humanity's best guess at the order of importance on a universal scale, our track record is deplorable.

I'll just go ahead and assume we are completely wrong on all matters of where our existence falls on the Univeral Uniqueness Scale. Color me skeptical of any idea or outlook that puts humans as the sole....anything in the universe.

I have precedent to think I may be right, do you?

E20

04-22-2009, 07:09 PM

lol aliens

I have seen teh alien once. It was a long long time ago.

BacktoBasics

04-23-2009, 09:01 AM

I'll go ahead and disagree and ask for your statistic.

Common sense with you says you don't really have one.

95% that given a billion years, the chance of life starting on a suitable planet is at least one in three.

The current research estimates that there are at least 361 intelligent civilizations in our Galaxy and possibly as many as 38,000.

The work is reported in the International Journal of Astrobiology.

50Bestspurever

04-23-2009, 11:26 PM

And there it is.

And there it is what? That you believe one fairy tale over the other? :rolleyes

Cant_Be_Faded

04-24-2009, 12:43 AM

50Bestspurever

04-24-2009, 01:26 AM

There is this ratio or equation or something this guy at work always used to talk about, that tells the scientifically inclined mind that there is almost no chance in hell that there is NOT other life out there.
It's based on the chances of an earth existing, using the total sheer numbers of existing galaxies and systems we know to be out there.
Stephen Hawking himself said this is highly probable, but would be a complete disaster upon first contact...
Face it. We're not alone.
Let's just hope by the time we make first contact, we have better weapons.

I agree with you completely. The point I was trying to make is, some people will say there is no such proof of the existence of other life in this universe. Which there isn't. But the same people will have no problem believing that a man lived in a whale or a man made an ocean part in half or turned water into wine. I was saying for me it is easier to believe in the former.

El Jefe

04-24-2009, 02:50 AM

The Drake equation IS useless in telling us how many advanced lifeforms are in the universe. We don't have the ratios of habitable planets, how many of those planets form life, how many of those planets with life lead to intelligence etc, etc....

But you can't assign a value of zero anywhere, because life DOES exist in the Universe (us) so there is some probability it can happen. Taking that fact, and then taking into account the sheer vastness of the Universe, life has happened somewhere else. We don't know how often, we don't know to what degree, but it has happened. To think anything else is to not understand the scope of the universe.

Of course some people have a problem with this for certain reasons, and it can be easy to dismiss because the human brain isn't particularly equipped to handle the size of something like "everything in existence." We think of a building as being big. A city is huge, a country has countless places you'll never visit and see, and the entire Earth is a concept only, not something tangible that you can see all at once. The fact that there are an uncountable number of galaxies in the sky, containing an uncountable number of stars with an uncountable number of planets is an easy concept to ignore.

And that's the stuff we CAN see......

phyzik

04-24-2009, 09:02 AM

Spock

04-24-2009, 09:10 AM

Believing that life only exists on Earth is totally illogical.

Nbadan

04-24-2009, 12:08 PM

Would the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life necessarily disprove religion?

Leetonidas

04-24-2009, 12:27 PM

Anybody who honestly believes the human race is the only intelligent civilization in the Universe is a fucking moron.

There's so much out there that the human mind will never be able to comprehend, much less ever SEE.

BacktoBasics

04-24-2009, 12:35 PM

Would the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life necessarily disprove religion?It wouldn't disprove the "higher power" idea but I do think to a larger extent it would disprove mainstream religions unless Jesus spend 30 years on each intelligently civilized planet :rolleyes.

InRareForm

04-24-2009, 12:47 PM

this is a good read :wakeup

The Physics of Extraterrestrial Civilizations
How advanced could they possibly be?

M. Kaku (mkaku.org)

The late Carl Sagan once asked this question, “What does it mean for a civilization to be a million years old? We have had radio telescopes and spaceships for a few decades; our technical civilization is a few hundred years old… an advanced civilization millions of years old is as much beyond us as we are beyond a bush baby or a macaque.”

Although any conjecture about such advanced civilizations is a matter of sheer speculation, one can still use the laws of physics to place upper and lower limits on these civilizations. In particular, now that the laws of quantum field theory, general relativity, thermodynamics, etc. are fairly well-established, physics can impose broad physical bounds which constrain the parameters of these civilizations.

This question is no longer a matter of idle speculation. Soon, humanity may face an existential shock as the current list of a dozen Jupiter-sized extra-solar planets swells to hundreds of earth-sized planets, almost identical twins of our celestial homeland. This may usher in a new era in our relationship with the universe: we will never see the night sky in the same way ever again, realizing that scientists may eventually compile an encyclopedia identifying the precise co-ordinates of perhaps hundreds of earth-like planets.

Today, every few weeks brings news of a new Jupiter-sized extra-solar planet being discovered, the latest being about 15 light years away orbiting around the star Gliese 876. The most spectacular of these findings was photographed by the Hubble Space Telescope, which captured breathtaking photos of a planet 450 light years away being sling-shot into space by a double-star system.

But the best is yet to come. Early in the next decade, scientists will launch a new kind of telescope, the interferome try space telescope, which uses the interference of light beams to enhance the resolving power of telescopes.

For example, the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM), to be launched early in the next decade, consists of multiple telescopes placed along a 30 foot structure. With an unprecedented resolution approaching the physical limits of optics, the SIM is so sensitive that it almost defies belief: orbiting the earth, it can detect the motion of a lantern being waved by an astronaut on Mars!

The SIM, in turn, will pave the way for the Terrestrial Planet Finder, to be launched late in the next decade, which should identify even more earth-like planets. It will scan the brightest 1,000 stars within 50 light years of the earth and will focus on the 50 to 100 brightest planetary systems.

All this, in turn, will stimulate an active effort to determine if any of them harbor life, perhaps some with civilizations more advanced than ours.

Although it is impossible to predict the precise features of such advanced civilizations, their broad outlines can be analyzed using the laws of physics. No matter how many millions of years separate us from them, they still must obey the iron laws of physics, which are now advanced enough to explain everything from sub-atomic particles to the large-scale structure of the universe, through a staggering 43 orders of magnitude.

Physics of Type I, II, and III Civilizations

Specifically, we can rank civilizations by their energy consumption, using the following principles:

1) The laws of thermodynamics. Even an advanced civilization is bound by the laws of thermodynamics, especially the Second Law, and can hence be ranked by the energy at their disposal.

2) The laws of stable matter. Baryonic matter (e.g. based on protons and neutrons) tends to clump into three large groupings: planets, stars and galaxies. (This is a well-defined by product of stellar and galactic evolution, thermonuclear fusion, etc.) Thus, their energy will also be based on three distinct types, and this places upper limits on their rate of energy consumption.

3) The laws of planetary evolution. Any advanced civilization must grow in energy consumption faster than the frequency of life-threatening catastrophes (e.g. meteor impacts, ice ages, supernovas, etc.). If they grow any slower, they are doomed to extinction. This places mathematical lower limits on the rate of growth of these civilizations.

In a seminal paper published in 1964 in the Journal of Soviet Astronomy, Russian astrophysicist Nicolai Kardashev theorized that advanced civilizations must therefore be grouped according to three types: Type I, II, and III, which have mastered planetary, stellar and galactic forms of energy, respectively. He calculated that the energy consumption of these three types of civilization would be separated by a factor of many billions. But how long will it take to reach Type II and III status?
Shorter than most realize.

Berkeley astronomer Don Goldsmith reminds us that the earth receives about one billionth of the suns energy, and that humans utilize about one millionth of that. So we consume about one million billionth of the suns total energy. At present, our entire planetary energy production is about 10 billion billion ergs per second. But our energy growth is rising exponentially, and hence we can calculate how long it will take to rise to Type II or III status.

Goldsmith says, “Look how far we have come in energy uses once we figured out how to manipulate energy, how to get fossil fuels really going, and how to create electrical power from hydropower, and so forth; we’ve come up in energy uses in a remarkable amount in just a couple of centuries compared to billions of years our planet has been here … and this same sort of thing may apply to other civilizations.”

Physicist Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study estimates that, within 200 years or so, we should attain Type I status. In fact, growing at a modest rate of 1% per year, Kardashev estimated that it would take only 3,200 years to reach Type II status, and 5,800 years to reach Type III status. Living in a Type I,II, or III civilization

For example, a Type I civilization is a truly planetary one, which has mastered most forms of planetary energy. Their energy output may be on the order of thousands to millions of times our current planetary output. Mark Twain once said, ”Everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it.“ This may change with a Type I civilization, which has enough energy to modify the weather. They also have enough energy to alter the course of earthquakes, volcanoes, and build cities on their oceans.

Currently, our energy output qualifies us for Type 0 status. We derive our energy not from harnessing global forces, but by burning dead plants (e.g. oil and coal). But already, we can see the seeds of a Type I civilization. We see the beginning of a planetary language (English), a planetary communication system (the Internet), a planetary economy (the forging of the European Union), and even the beginnings of a planetary culture (via mass media, TV, rock music, and Hollywood films).

By definition, an advanced civilization must grow faster than the frequency of life-threatening catastrophes. Since large meteor and comet impacts take place once every few thousand years, a Type I civilization must master space travel to deflect space debris within that time frame, which should not be much of a problem. Ice ages may take place on a time scale of tens of thousands of years, so a Type I civilization must learn to modify the weather within that time frame.

Artificial and internal catastrophes must also be negotiated. But the problem of global pollution is only a mortal threat for a Type 0 civilization; a Type I civilization has lived for several millennia as a planetary civilization, necessarily achieving ecological planetary balance. Internal problems like wars do pose a serious recurring threat, but they have thousands of years in which to solve racial, national, and sectarian conflicts.

Eventually, after several thousand years, a Type I civilization will exhaust the power of a planet, and will derive their energy by consuming the entire output of their suns energy, or roughly a billion trillion trillion ergs per second.

With their energy output comparable to that of a small star, they should be visible from space. Dyson has proposed that a Type II civilization may even build a gigantic sphere around their star to more efficiently utilize its total energy output. Even if they try to conceal their existence, they must, by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, emit waste heat. From outer space, their planet may glow like a Christmas tree ornament. Dyson has even proposed looking specifically for infrared emissions (rather than radio and TV) to identify these Type II civilizations. :wow:wow:wow:wow

Perhaps the only serious threat to a Type II civilization would be a nearby supernova explosion, whose sudden eruption could scorch their planet in a withering blast of X-rays, killing all life forms. Thus, perhaps the most interesting civilization is a Type III civilization, for it is truly immortal. They have exhausted the power of a single star, and have reached for other star systems. No natural catastrophe known to science is capable of destroying a Type III civilization.

Faced with a neighboring supernova, it would have several alternatives, such as altering the evolution of dying red giant star which is about to explode, or leaving this particular star system and terraforming a nearby planetary system.

However, there are roadblocks to an emerging Type III civilization. Eventually, it bumps up against another iron law of physics, the theory of relativity. Dyson estimates that this may delay the transition to a Type III civilization by perhaps millions of years.

But even with the light barrier, there are a number of ways of expanding at near-light velocities. For example, the ultimate measure of a rockets capability is measured by something called “specific impulse” (defined as the product of the thrust and the duration, measured in units of seconds). Chemical rockets can attain specific impulses of several hundred to several thousand seconds. Ion engines can attain specific impulses of tens of thousands of seconds. But to attain near-light speed velocity, one has to achieve specific impulse of about 30 million seconds, which is far beyond our current capability, but not that of a Type III civilization. A variety of propulsion systems would be available for sub-light speed probes (such as ram-jet fusion engines, photonic engines, etc.)
How to Explore the Galaxy

Because distances between stars are so vast, and the number of unsuitable, lifeless solar systems so large, a Type III civilization would be faced with the next question: what is the mathematically most efficient way of exploring the hundreds of billions of stars in the galaxy?

In science fiction, the search for inhabitable worlds has been immortalized on TV by heroic captains boldly commanding a lone star ship, or as the murderous Borg, a Type III civilization which absorbs lower Type II civilization (such as the Federation). However, the most mathematically efficient method to explore space is far less glamorous: to send fleets of “Von Neumann probes” throughout the galaxy (named after John Von Neumann, who established the mathematical laws of self-replicating systems).

A Von Neumann probe is a robot designed to reach distant star systems and create factories which will reproduce copies themselves by the thousands. A dead moon rather than a planet makes the ideal destination for Von Neumann probes, since they can easily land and take off from these moons, and also because these moons have no erosion. These probes would live off the land, using naturally occurring deposits of iron, nickel, etc. to create the raw ingredients to build a robot factory. They would create thousands of copies of themselves, which would then scatter and search for other star systems.

Similar to a virus colonizing a body many times its size, eventually there would be a sphere of trillions of Von Neumann probes expanding in all directions, increasing at a fraction of the speed of light. In this fashion, even a galaxy 100,000 light years across may be completely analyzed within, say, a half million years.

If a Von Neumann probe only finds evidence of primitive life (such as an unstable, savage Type 0 civilization) they might simply lie dormant on the moon, silently waiting for the Type 0 civilization to evolve into a stable Type I civilization. After waiting quietly for several millennia, they may be activated when the emerging Type I civilization is advanced enough to set up a lunar colony. Physicist Paul Davies of the University of Adelaide has even raised the possibility of a Von Neumann probe resting on our own moon, left over from a previous visitation in our system aeons ago.

(If this sounds a bit familiar, that’s because it was the basis of the film, 2001. Originally, Stanley Kubrick began the film with a series of scientists explaining how probes like these would be the most efficient method of exploring outer space. Unfortunately, at the last minute, Kubrick cut the opening segment from his film, and these monoliths became almost mystical entities)
New Developments

Since Kardashev gave the original ranking of civilizations, there have been many scientific developments which refine and extend his original analysis, such as recent developments in nanotechnology, biotechnology, quantum physics, etc.

For example, nanotechnology may facilitate the development of Von Neumann probes. As physicist Richard Feynman observed in his seminal essay, “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom,” there is nothing in the laws of physics which prevents building armies of molecular-sized machines. At present, scientists have already built atomic-sized curiosities, such as an atomic abacus with Buckyballs and an atomic guitar with strings about 100 atoms across.

Paul Davies speculates that a space-faring civilization could use nanotechnology to build miniature probes to explore the galaxy, perhaps no bigger than your palm. Davies says, “The tiny probes I’m talking about will be so inconspicuous that it’s no surprise that we haven’t come across one. It’s not the sort of thing that you’re going to trip over in your back yard. So if that is the way technology develops, namely, smaller, faster, cheaper and if other civilizations have gone this route, then we could be surrounded by surveillance devices.”

Furthermore, the development of biotechnology has opened entirely new possibilities. These probes may act as life-forms, reproducing their genetic information, mutating and evolving at each stage of reproduction to enhance their capabilities, and may have artificial intelligence to accelerate their search.

Also, information theory modifies the original Kardashev analysis. The current SETI project only scans a few frequencies of radio and TV emissions sent by a Type 0 civilization, but perhaps not an advanced civilization. Because of the enormous static found in deep space, broadcasting on a single frequency presents a serious source of error. Instead of putting all your eggs in one basket, a more efficient system is to break up the message and smear it out over all frequencies (e.g. via Fourier like transform) and then reassemble the signal only at the other end. In this way, even if certain frequencies are disrupted by static, enough of the message will survive to accurately reassemble the message via error correction routines. However, any Type 0 civilization listening in on the message on one frequency band would only hear nonsense. In other words, our galaxy could be teeming with messages from various Type II and III civilizations, but our Type 0 radio telescopes would only hear gibberish.

Lastly, there is also the possibility that a Type II or Type III civilization might be able to reach the fabled Planck energy with their machines (10^19 billion electron volts). This is energy is a quadrillion times larger than our most powerful atom smasher. This energy, as fantastic as it may seem, is (by definition) within the range of a Type II or III civilization.

The Planck energy only occurs at the center of black holes and the instant of the Big Bang. But with recent advances in quantum gravity and superstring theory, there is renewed interest among physicists about energies so vast that quantum effects rip apart the fabric of space and time. Although it is by no means certain that quantum physics allows for stable wormholes, this raises the remote possibility that a sufficiently advanced civilizations may be able to move via holes in space, like Alice’s Looking Glass. And if these civilizations can successfully navigate through stable wormholes, then attaining a specific impulse of a million seconds is no longer a problem. They merely take a short-cut through the galaxy. This would greatly cut down the transition between a Type II and Type III civilization.

Second, the ability to tear holes in space and time may come in handy one day. Astronomers, analyzing light from distant supernovas, have concluded recently that the universe may be accelerating, rather than slowing down. If this is true, there may be an anti-gravity force (perhaps Einstein’s cosmological constant) which is counteracting the gravitational attraction of distant galaxies. But this also means that the universe might expand forever in a Big Chill, until temperatures approach near-absolute zero. Several papers have recently laid out what such a dismal universe may look like. It will be a pitiful sight: any civilization which survives will be desperately huddled next to the dying embers of fading neutron stars and black holes. All intelligent life must die when the universe dies.

Contemplating the death of the sun, the philosopher Bertrand Russel once wrote perhaps the most depressing paragraph in the English language: “…All the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and the whole temple of Mans achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins…”

Today, we realize that sufficiently powerful rockets may spare us from the death of our sun 5 billion years from now, when the oceans will boil and the mountains will melt. But how do we escape the death of the universe itself?

Astronomer John Barrows of the University of Sussex writes, “Suppose that we extend the classification upwards. Members of these hypothetical civilizations of Type IV, V, VI, … and so on, would be able to manipulate the structures in the universe on larger and larger scales, encompassing groups of galaxies, clusters, and superclusters of galaxies.” Civilizations beyond Type III may have enough energy to escape our dying universe via holes in space.

Lastly, physicist Alan Guth of MIT, one of the originators of the inflationary universe theory, has even computed the energy necessary to create a baby universe in the laboratory (the temperature is 1,000 trillion degrees, which is within the range of these hypothetical civilizations).

Of course, until someone actually makes contact with an advanced civilization, all of this amounts to speculation tempered with the laws of physics, no more than a useful guide in our search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. But one day, many of us will gaze at the encyclopedia containing the coordinates of perhaps hundreds of earth-like planets in our sector of the galaxy. Then we will wonder, as Sagan did, what a civilization a millions years ahead of ours will look like…

BackStabber

04-24-2009, 12:54 PM

A long read.

BacktoBasics

04-24-2009, 01:04 PM

Good read.

E20

04-24-2009, 01:54 PM

That article was more science fiction than plausible thought. I'm not saying it can't happen but..lol.

Speculating about intelligent life will get you nowhere, I mean who really knows, I mean there is life outside of the earth obviously, but thinking if it is as smart as us is good day dreamig, but why bother. Think about the intelligent life on this planet beacuse we already have enough problems, but hopefully we can upgrade to type II civilization like the Zerg and make a giant sphere, I don't know waht kind of spehere, but any sphere would do, around the sun to light up like a christmas tree......lol

DarkReign

04-24-2009, 02:00 PM

Good read.

Real good read. I like mental excercises, not necessarily helpful, but entertaining and imaginative.

JoeChalupa

04-24-2009, 02:17 PM

Good read but in the end it still just boils down to speculation which is the best any of us can really do isn't it?

ATRAIN

04-24-2009, 02:18 PM

Didnt you guys know according to South Park Earth is part of a intergalactic reality tv show. There is a planet of deers, squirrles, Asians, Blacks, Mexicans, Dogs, Cats, ETC... and they put us all together to interact.

Nbadan

04-24-2009, 02:35 PM

Former astronaut: Man not alone in universe

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

He says governments are concealing evidence that extraterrestrials exist
The astronaut is from Roswell, New Mexico, the site of an alleged UFO crash
Mitchell: Roswell residents "told not to talk about their experience" by military

CNN) -- Earth Day may fall later this week, but as far as former NASA astronaut Edgar Mitchell and other UFO enthusiasts are concerned, the real story is happening elsewhere.

Mitchell, who was part of the 1971 Apollo 14 moon mission, asserted Monday that extraterrestrial life exists, and that the truth is being concealed by the U.S. and other governments.

===

Mitchell grew up in Roswell, New Mexico, which some UFO believers maintain was the site of a UFO crash in 1947. He said residents of his hometown "had been hushed and told not to talk about their experience by military authorities." They had been warned of "dire consequences" if they did so.

But, he claimed, they "didn't want to go to the grave with their story. They wanted to tell somebody reliable. And being a local boy and having been to the moon, they considered me reliable enough to whisper in my ear their particular story."

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/20/ufo.conference/index.html)

BacktoBasics

04-24-2009, 02:40 PM

Unfortunately whether right or wrong Mitchell really lacks credibility at this point. He came forward with things he allegedly witnessed in person on a mission and when no one listened or corroborated his claims he fell back on this Roswell story. He's been all over the place for the last couple of years.

Blake

04-26-2009, 03:35 PM

ever heard of the Drake equation?

yes. plenty of criticisms of it.

ever heard of the Fermi (-Hart) Paradox?

Blake

04-26-2009, 03:43 PM

ET Likely Doesn't Exist, Finds Math Model
Irene Klotz, Discovery News

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.

Earthlings overcame horrendous odds -- Watson pegs it at less than 0.01 percent over 4 billion years -- to achieve life. The harsh reality is that we don't have much time left.

No need to cash out your 401K or anything like that, but intelligent life appeared relatively late on the scene. Scientists believe the first life forms emerged four billion years ago. Humans have walked the planet for only the last 100,000 years or so.

"If we had evolved early … then even with a sample of one, we'd suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period," Watson said.

Earth's days are numbered. In another billion years or so, the sun will grow hotter and brighter, toasting our blue world beyond recognition.

"Earth's biosphere is now in its old age," Watson said.

"This has implications for our understanding of the likelihood of complex life and intelligence arising on any given planet," he added. "It suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely -- in fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed."

.....

more: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/04/21/extra-terrestrial-life.html

DarkReign

04-27-2009, 09:13 AM

^ I can see what theyre trying to say, but if by "rare" they mean odds of 1 trillion to 1, then its still likely there is another intelligent lifeform in the universe.

The universe is so incredibly huge, so vast, it might as well be endless. Its so big, light from the Big Bang is still traveling to the end of the universe.

1 Trillion to 1 odds still makes it more than likely. You could raise that number exponentially and it would still be likely that somewhere, in some corner of the universe, intelligent life exists.

Now, is it the space-faring sort of intelligent being? Thats obviously highly unlikely. But life itself is inevitable when viewed through a statistical probability prism.

It is my belief that in time, life will be considered an inevitable byproduct of existence. That our descendants will look upon our era's sole-life centric arguments as humorous at best, pitiful at worst.

Again, its just a belief. But there could come a time when the question is not "Is there life out there?", but "Exactly how much life is out there?"

My opinion, anyway.

BacktoBasics

04-27-2009, 09:35 AM

I feel the same way. Blake's post seems to completely ignore the size of the universe. Its as if the person who wrote the article has no reference point to the entire mass of space.

Blake

04-27-2009, 12:39 PM

I feel the same way. Blake's post seems to completely ignore the size of the universe. Its as if the person who wrote the article has no reference point to the entire mass of space.

:lol because you have a great idea about the size of the universe and scientists that actually research the issue don't.

great logic.

Of course, it shouldn't surprise me, coming from someone who downplays actual experts in the field if their findings don't agree with his opinion.

what a maroon. :lol

BacktoBasics

04-27-2009, 01:23 PM

:lol because you have a great idea about the size of the universe and scientists that actually research the issue don't.

great logic.

Of course, it shouldn't surprise me, coming from someone who downplays actual experts in the field if their findings don't agree with his opinion.

what a maroon. :lolYou have a habit of posting shit with little credibility just to simply play devils advocate. I looked up the guy who's quoted in that article and he doesn't seem to have much of a following. Not only that but his views are pretty contradictory to what most scientists have stated. He's in the minority with his views...a very very very small minority.

So I'm not downplaying "experts in their field" I'm reading between the lines and as I read it here its one guy with a view that pretty much goes against the larger majority of his field.

Here's a thread about the article you referenced. There are a ton of good references (links to scientific articles and other threads) from other scientists, organizations and field experts who provide a much larger scope of science to support their claims. I'm not saying the site is the most credible point of reference but the links and articles within the thread are pretty solid.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread351189/pg1

Blake

04-27-2009, 02:21 PM

You have a habit of posting shit with little credibility just to simply play devils advocate. I looked up the guy who's quoted in that article and he doesn't seem to have much of a following.

Yeah, I guess I have a habit of posting credible crap sources in other threads (like the surgeon general of the United States) while you dismiss them.

Not only that but his views are pretty contradictory to what most scientists have stated. He's in the minority with his views...a very very very small minority.

Watson's mathematical model story was picked up by discovery channel, space.com, sciencedaily.com, the BBC, MSNBC among other websites listed on the 1st two pages of googling "watson odds intelligent life"

So I'm not downplaying "experts in their field" I'm reading between the lines and as I read it here its one guy with a view that pretty much goes against the larger majority of his field.

Here's a thread about the article you referenced. There are a ton of good references (links to scientific articles and other threads) from other scientists, organizations and field experts who provide a much larger scope of science to support their claims. I'm not saying the site is the most credible point of reference but the links and articles within the thread are pretty solid.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread351189/pg1

abovetopsecret.com? :lol

I have read most of those articles and links already.

I'm betting you still haven't read up on the Fermi Paradox.

BacktoBasics

04-27-2009, 02:45 PM

Yeah, I guess I have a habit of posting credible crap sources in other threads (like the surgeon general of the United States) while you dismiss them.

Watson's mathematical model story was picked up by discovery channel, space.com, sciencedaily.com, the BBC, MSNBC among other websites listed on the 1st two pages of googling "watson odds intelligent life"

abovetopsecret.com? :lol

I have read most of those articles and links already.

I'm betting you still haven't read up on the Fermi Paradox.It may have been picked up and ran to fill space but I have yet to see anything or anyone of any credibility support his findings or theory.

Its an idiotic argument which no one else other than you supports. Its pretty simple....no matter how crazy the odds are the vast size of the universe put those odds at probable.

The odds of winning the lottery are pretty crazy but the shear size of the buyers almost always equates to someone winning.

I never said ATS was a credible source. In fact I went out of my way to negate it but no surprise to find you creating controversy where there is none.

Blake

04-27-2009, 03:08 PM

It may have been picked up and ran to fill space but I have yet to see anything or anyone of any credibility support his findings or theory.

it's been a year and I have yet to see anything or anyone of credibility debunk his findings or theory.

Its an idiotic argument which no one else other than you supports. Its pretty simple....no matter how crazy the odds are the vast size of the universe put those odds at probable.

no matter what you think about yourself, you are not a credible source.

The odds of winning the lottery are pretty crazy but the shear size of the buyers almost always equates to someone winning.

great! Earth won the lottery. How exactly does that mean that some other planet played the same numbers and shared the winnings in this lottery?

I never said ATS was a credible source. In fact I went out of my way to negate it but no surprise to find you creating controversy where there is none.

If you went out of your way to negate it, then why use it to begin with? How about posting a real source?

No surprise you won't do it.

BacktoBasics

04-27-2009, 03:53 PM

I went out of my way to use it (and I know you can't read) because there are good links to some very solid sources in that thread.

You say no one has debunked his findings...maybe because he didn't find anything. The current search groups and organized parties with the backing of millions of dollars and the support of the bulk of the industry are breaking ground daily on proving that there are planets out there that can in fact support life like ours. There work is leaps and bounds more influential and reputable than Watkins work.

You know what I don't care. I don't like you and I don't like discussing things with you. I'm done engaging in conversation with you. You have now reached Angel Luv status.

DarkReign

04-27-2009, 04:21 PM

:lol because you have a great idea about the size of the universe and scientists that actually research the issue don't.

great logic.

No offense, but you dont have to be a scientist to try and fathom the immensity of the universe.

For example,

Just this past century, blackholes were only theoretically made possible by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Yet, their existence was not only questioned, but outright dismissed by some of Einstein's contemporaries (even Einstein himself, iirc?).

The doubters of the time couldnt fathom what a blackhole would mean in the universal picture. A tear in space-time? Are you fucking joking? A gravitational force so strong not even light can escape?! Foolhardy, indeed.

Fast forward 50 short years, not only do blackholes exist with evidence, but theyre centric to a stable galaxy. I dont know if its been proven beyond a reasonable doubt yet, but that there is a blackhole at the center of every galaxy in the universe.

This once mysterious, theoretical anamoly turns out to be one of the universe's essential building blocks. Its single most powerful, destructive force is the sole provider of stability and planet/star creation in every galaxy. Without blackholes, we wouldnt even exist as there wouldnt be enough gravitational force that allows the creation of such large masses of matter.

Sure, we'd still have planets and stars (i think), but there would be far, FAR less in the universe, so incredibly dispersed, they might as well not exist at all. In actuality, I dont know for sure what a universe without blackholes is...I might be wrong, it might mean that star creation is impossible, but I dont know. Impossible seems too much...

Galaxies?! Wouldnt happen, period, thats for sure.

The theory of relativity was/is a radical idea. Radical in the sense that the world of physics afterword was an incredibly different landscape. With every one question answered ( how the fuck do you explain a galaxy? there is no known gravitational force that could possibly hold the mass of a galaxy together?), a million more are asked (a rip in space-time?! whats the biggest known one? What purpose do they serve? WTF?!).

Point is, most humans lack the ability to see a world/universe that doesnt have their existence at the highest magnitude of importance. Whether its a belief in God and that he took a week out of his busy, Universe-creating schedule to craft us in His image or that our existence is the single most unique quirk of nature's statistical capabilities.

Either way, it attaches entirely too much significance to humanity as some example of Nature's/God's ultimate gift of some sort. We are no gift, we are not unique and only time will tell us the whole truth about that (if we dont kill ourselves first....Im betting our extinction comes much sooner than the discovery of life elsewhere).

Of course, it shouldn't surprise me, coming from someone who downplays actual experts in the field if their findings don't agree with his opinion.

what a maroon. :lol

I know youre talking to B2B here, but his agreement was with me. I dont discount the opinion those in the field. On the contrary, I value them (of course, theyre the experts, not me).

But again, it is my belief that humans think of a universe to centric about them. Yeah, so and so scientist says life somewhere else is highly unlikely to the point of impossibility. Great, because I can find another scientist who says that life somewhere else is so highly likely its an inevitability.

Queue the crazy algorithm that supports each man's claim and where are we left?

Right where we started.

Blake

04-27-2009, 04:27 PM

I went out of my way to use it (and I know you can't read) because there are good links to some very solid sources in that thread.

I already said I've already read most of those "sources" and links.

Pretty apparent now that you can't copy and paste real sources.

You say no one has debunked his findings...maybe because he didn't find anything.

He came up with a mathematical model of the probability of intelligent life on planets other than Earth.

Either you can't read or don't want to.

The current search groups and organized parties with the backing of millions of dollars and the support of the bulk of the industry are breaking ground daily on proving that there are planets out there that can in fact support life like ours. There work is leaps and bounds more influential and reputable than Watkins work.

:rolleyes

I'll save you the trouble, straw man.

http://kepler.nasa.gov/

let me know when the Kepler mission finds intelligent life.

You know what I don't care. I don't like you and I don't like discussing things with you. I'm done engaging in conversation with you. You have now reached Angel Luv status.

:lol I wouldn't like me either if I kept getting owned this much.

what's somewhat ironic is that you easily dismiss angel luv as a kook for believing in God, yet here you are saying a scientist from a university is an idiot for making his argument against the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

nice job, kook.

BacktoBasics

04-27-2009, 04:28 PM

Apology accepted.

Blake

04-27-2009, 04:39 PM

No offense, but you dont have to be a scientist to try and fathom the immensity of the universe.

no you don't, but I'm pretty sure though that scientists take into account the vastness of the universe when creating probability theories such as the 'rare earth' theory

I know youre talking to B2B here, but his agreement was with me. I dont discount the opinion those in the field. On the contrary, I value them (of course, theyre the experts, not me).

But again, it is my belief that humans think of a universe to centric about them. Yeah, so and so scientist says life somewhere else is highly unlikely to the point of impossibility. Great, because I can find another scientist who says that life somewhere else is so highly likely its an inevitability.

Queue the crazy algorithm that supports each man's claim and where are we left?

Right where we started.

Immenseness and vastness =/= probability

Is it possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe? absolutely

Is it highly probable based on the sheer volume of planets in the universe? no

Blake

04-27-2009, 04:42 PM

Apology accepted.

just because there are a bazillion apologies in the universe does not mean there is a high probability you will ever receive one.

BacktoBasics

04-27-2009, 04:43 PM

just because there are a bazillion apologies in the universe does not mean there is a high probability you will ever receive one.oh okay. Apology for the apology accepted.

Blake

04-27-2009, 04:52 PM

oh okay. Apology for the apology accepted.

:lol keep telling yourself there's an apology out there meant especially for you.

I'm sorry you're an idiot.

BacktoBasics

04-27-2009, 05:01 PM

:lol keep telling yourself there's an apology out there meant especially for you.

I'm sorry you're an idiot.Oh you're sorry. No problem. Apology accepted.

Summers

04-27-2009, 05:13 PM

Coincidentally, my zoology professor reminded us today that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

z0sa

04-27-2009, 05:51 PM

Coincidentally, my zoology professor reminded us today that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

'i don't know' is the only reasonable answer, but humans myself included are not reasonable.

Blake

04-27-2009, 06:04 PM

Oh you're sorry. No problem. Apology accepted.

You're welcome. I truly am sorry you are an idiot.

Accepting you are an idiot is half the battle, so kudos to you.

Blake

04-27-2009, 06:05 PM

Coincidentally, my zoology professor reminded us today that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

b2b is obviously not your zoology professor.

DarkReign

04-28-2009, 11:55 AM

Immenseness and vastness =/= probability

Is it possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe? absolutely

Is it highly probable based on the sheer volume of planets in the universe? no

My math skills are rotting on the vine...care to explain?

Are you saying probability takes into account the vastness of the universe? Because any formula that claims to do so should be regarded with skepticism.

My point was, there are equally brilliant physicists who hold true the exact opposite viewpoints.

Like someone else said "I dont know" is a perfectly acceptable answer, and I think I have maintained that stance. But this conversation ventured into opinion and I gave mine and the reason for it.

Blake

04-28-2009, 01:13 PM

My math skills are rotting on the vine...care to explain?

Are you saying probability takes into account the vastness of the universe? Because any formula that claims to do so should be regarded with skepticism.

My point was, there are equally brilliant physicists who hold true the exact opposite viewpoints.

Like someone else said "I dont know" is a perfectly acceptable answer, and I think I have maintained that stance. But this conversation ventured into opinion and I gave mine and the reason for it.

Any formula on both sides of the discussion cannot possibly include all known or unknown factors.

All we know about life is what we observe here on Earth. To assume that because the universe is so vast that somewhere out there, life is able to survive and thrive on a planet like Jupiter, is faulty logic.

Same thing with thinking that just because we exist and live in a vast universe that has approx 70 sextillion stars in the visible universe, it means that there just has to be intelligent life elsewhere.

Thus the math model that was drawn up by Andrew Watson.

on a side note, has nobody at all around here read up on Fermi's Paradox?

The Fermi Paradox is the apparent contradiction between the high probability extraterrestrial civilizations' existence and the lack of contact with such civilizations.

Here's a decent article on the subject:

The other side of the Fermi paradox
by Michael Huang

Monday, February 19, 2007

The Fermi paradox—the estimation that extraterrestrial civilizations are common and would naturally expand into space, contradicting the lack of evidence that they exist anywhere—is the subject of fascinating speculation and guesswork. Every possible fate of extraterrestrial intelligence is proposed and explored. These thought experiments are not only interesting in their own right, but may help evaluate the state of a more terrestrial civilization. What will happen to humankind in the future? By examining the possible futures of extraterrestrial civilizations, we are simultaneously examining the possible futures of our own civilization. Put in another way, if an alien civilization somewhere had their own version of the Fermi paradox, they would be speculating on our future in the same way that we speculate on theirs.

Stephen Webb’s book on the Fermi paradox, If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens… Where Is Everybody? Fifty Solutions to the Fermi Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life, puts its fifty solutions into three broad categories: “They Are Here”, extraterrestrials are in our vicinity, but hidden somehow; “They Exist But Have Not Yet Communicated”, they exist on a faraway world and have not reached us yet; and “They Do Not Exist”, they have never existed in the first place, or they have existed but have since gone extinct. Each of these categories has an equivalent for future human civilization: “We Will Exist Everywhere”, we will spread out from Earth and colonize space; “We Will Exist On Earth Only”, we will remain on Earth and fail to colonize space; “We Will Not Exist”, we will go extinct.

By examining the possible futures of extraterrestrial civilizations, we are simultaneously examining the possible futures of our own civilization.
Not every solution to the Fermi paradox is applicable to human civilization. All those which state that extraterrestrial intelligence does not exist in the first place are irrelevant (unless you argue that there is no intelligent life on Earth!). But many others are relevant and interesting predictions of the future of humankind.

“Solution 10: They Have Not Had Time to Reach Us” becomes “We Have Not Had Time to Reach Them”, which is appropriate for human civilization today, considering the short time that humans have existed, and the even shorter time that humans have had spaceflight. “Solution 14: They Stay at Home…” becomes “We Stay at Home”, arguing that we will stay on Earth due to apathy, technology, economics or politics (e.g. Proxmire effect or Park hypothesis. “Solution 15: …and Surf the Net” deals with the creation of virtual reality worlds so impressive that real world challenges, such as space colonization, pale in comparison. Games and virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft and Second Life have already gained a reputation for being addictive and all-consuming. Future generations of these immersive fantasy worlds will compel more people to neglect the real world.

While staying on Earth is a mediocre future for humankind, of course the worst possible future is extinction. Webb discusses gamma ray bursts and asteroid collisions as natural extinction events. A technological civilization is itself a risk, with its nuclear and biological weapons. In addition, Webb describes the exotic possibility of powerful, autonomous alien weapons (Solution 22: Berserkers) that either deliberately or inadvertently destroy all civilizations that they find.

There is a significant connection between the categories of “We Will Exist On Earth Only” and “We Will Not Exist”. Webb explained the strong motive for all civilizations—both extraterrestrial and human—to pursue colonization: “…in any case it seems a wise idea for a species to expand into space to guard against the possibility of planetary disaster”. Remaining on a single planet increases the risk of extinction, as Stephen Hawking and many others have stated.

The Fermi paradox is based on the premise that it is natural, logical and right for extraterrestrial civilizations to colonize space. The other side of the Fermi paradox is that it is natural, logical, and right for human civilization to colonize space. Anti-human-spaceflight advocates tend to hold the contradictory idea that colonization is alright for extraterrestrials, but wrong and immoral for us. However, colonizing and populating space is advantageous for every civilization; whether it happens to be extraterrestrial or terrestrial is beside the point.

If extraterrestrial civilizations do not exist, it is even more important for humans to survive and colonize space.
Webb’s 50th solution is the one that he believes is the most likely. Unfortunately for extraterrestrial enthusiasts, the solution is depressingly pessimistic: “…the only resolution of the Fermi paradox that makes sense to me—is that we are alone.” Webb’s preferred solution is highly controversial, but it satisfies Ockham’s razor; out of all the Fermi paradox explanations, it is the simplest one. On the other hand, the solution is only as good as the evidence it is based on. New evidence could lead to a different solution to the paradox.

If extraterrestrial civilizations do not exist, it is even more important for humans to survive and colonize space. If we do not do it, then no one else will. If extraterrestrial civilizations exist, the task will be shared. In any case, the ultimate goal for all civilizations is to spread life throughout the galaxy, to transform a largely dead galaxy into a living one.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/810/1

Opinion is all anyone really has....... of course, if you are b2b, you are "arrogant" and an "idiot" if you think we are alone.

El Jefe

04-28-2009, 04:14 PM

All we know about life is what we observe here on Earth. To assume that because the universe is so vast that somewhere out there, life is able to survive and thrive on a planet like Jupiter, is faulty logic.

Sure, that's faulty logic. We have no proof that life exists on Jupiter, so it wouldn't make any sense to firmly believe that life existed on a Jupiter like planet somewhere.

However, as many galaxies, as many stars as there are out there, isn't is reasonable to think that an earth like planet exists SOMEWHERE? How low would the probability for one forming be for this one to be the ONLY example in the universe of a planet that formed within the habitable zone of a star?

Are you saying that among the "sextillion" stars out there, that this is the only habitable planet?

El Jefe

04-28-2009, 04:20 PM

Also, not seeing where Fermi's paradox disproves the existence of life in the universe.

It raises an interesting question, "why is there no proof" But I think there are plenty of reasonable answers. The article you list even mentioned a book of 50 answers to the paradox, a full 2/3rds of which assume that their is life out there. I obviously haven't read the book, and have no idea of it's credibility, but I think it's safe to say that this isn't a shower stopper and does not negate the possibility (and probability) of extraterrestrial life.

Blake

04-28-2009, 04:22 PM

However, as many galaxies, as many stars as there are out there, isn't is reasonable to think that an earth like planet exists SOMEWHERE? How low would the probability for one forming be for this one to be the ONLY example in the universe of a planet that formed within the habitable zone of a star?

how many planets do you know of that are capable of sustaining life?

Are you saying that among the "sextillion" stars out there, that this is the only habitable planet?

Why is there an assumption that just because a planet is habitable that life automatically will spring from it?

El Jefe

04-28-2009, 04:35 PM

how many planets do you know of that are capable of sustaining life?
I know of one, just like you. Discovering exoplanets is a recent phenomenon, and they're finding more and more. So we know that
A) Planets exists outside of our solar system
B) The universe is a pretty big place
C) It's happened once, and there is no evidence that it can't happen again.

Why is there an assumption that just because a planet is habitable that life automatically will spring from it?

100% of the habitable planets we know of have created life. Life has formed in every nook and cranny of the planet, even in places that we thought were inhospitable. Life so far has seemed somewhat resilient.

I grant you, a sample size of one gives no insight into the probability. But again I tell you, we know the probability is greater than 0. We know the probability of a habitable planet forming is greater than 0. We know the probability of intelligent life forming is greater than 0. And we know that the universe is massive, anything with a probability greater than 0 will probably happen multiple times. I don't see why it's hard to admit that it's probable.

Blake

04-28-2009, 04:38 PM

Also, not seeing where Fermi's paradox disproves the existence of life in the universe.

The Fermi paradox does not prove or disprove anything.

Do you know what the word "paradox" means?

It raises an interesting question, "why is there no proof" But I think there are plenty of reasonable answers. The article you list even mentioned a book of 50 answers to the paradox, a full 2/3rds of which assume that their is life out there. I obviously haven't read the book, and have no idea of it's credibility, but I think it's safe to say that this isn't a shower stopper and does not negate the possibility (and probability) of extraterrestrial life.

I agree that you obviously haven't read the book.

El Jefe

04-28-2009, 04:53 PM

The Fermi paradox does not prove or disprove anything.

Do you know what the word "paradox" means?

Quite aware of what it means. I also don't think this is a true paradox. Interesting thought experiment, yes, paradox.....not quite.

I agree that you obviously haven't read the book.

I'm glad we can agree on things I haven't read. At least I know there can be common ground SOMEWHERE.

Blake

04-28-2009, 04:58 PM

I know of one, just like you. Discovering exoplanets is a recent phenomenon, and they're finding more and more. So we know that
A) Planets exists outside of our solar system
B) The universe is a pretty big place
C) It's happened once, and there is no evidence that it can't happen again.

100% of the habitable planets we know of have created life. Life has formed in every nook and cranny of the planet, even in places that we thought were inhospitable. Life so far has seemed somewhat resilient.

I grant you, a sample size of one gives no insight into the probability. But again I tell you, we know the probability is greater than 0. We know the probability of a habitable planet forming is greater than 0. We know the probability of intelligent life forming is greater than 0. And we know that the universe is massive, anything with a probability greater than 0 will probably happen multiple times. I don't see why it's hard to admit that it's probable.

how did we get back to page 1?

You're right, sample size of one does nothing for probability. A sample size of 2 does everything.

I have no problem admitting intelligent life is possible. Probable is a different matter.

Blake

04-28-2009, 05:03 PM

Quite aware of what it means. I also don't think this is a true paradox. Interesting thought experiment, yes, paradox.....not quite.

aside from your opinion on the Fermi paradix being an actual paradox, the point is that it does not prove or disprove anything.

I'm glad we can agree on things I haven't read. At least I know there can be common ground SOMEWHERE.

Great. I would suggest reading it before making "it's safe to say" assumptions about it.

El Jefe

04-28-2009, 05:06 PM

I have no problem admitting intelligent life is possible. Probable is a different matter.

I'm glad you admit something we already know exists is possible elsewhere in the universe. When you started talking about this being the only habitable planet anywhere, I was worried about you.

El Jefe

04-28-2009, 05:10 PM

aside from your opinion on the Fermi paradix being an actual paradox, the point is that it does not prove or disprove anything.
Then why bring it up?

Great. I would suggest reading it before making "it's safe to say" assumptions about it.
I can come up with 2 or 3 explanations to the "paradox" off the top of my head. That is really the source of my assumption. That said, I thought you were bringing it up to disprove the existence of life. Since you weren't, consider it dropped.

I Love Me Some Me

04-29-2009, 08:21 AM

Blake

04-29-2009, 08:29 AM

Then why bring it up?

you didn't really read the rest of the thread.

Blake

04-29-2009, 08:43 AM

I find it interesting that many who use a lack of empirical evidence of a higher power as a reason to believe God does not exist, are the same people who ignore a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of life on other planets.

I concur. I would say b2b belongs in angel luv territory, but I wouldn't want to do that to her.

I would also add that if God were somehow scientifically proven to exist, that I would think the odds for intelligent life elsewhere go up exponentially.

Without God, the odds of abiogenesis happening and then life forms not only surviving in rough condititions, but evolving all the way up to humans intelligence levels, are low enough on their own.....but then to say that it is "probable" that it has happened the same way elsewhere in the universe is ludicrous.

Blake

04-29-2009, 08:44 AM

I'm glad you admit something we already know exists is possible elsewhere in the universe. When you started talking about this being the only habitable planet anywhere, I was worried about you.

I never talked about this being the only habitable planet anywhere. Thanks for not reading.

DarkReign

04-29-2009, 10:28 AM

how many planets do you know of that are capable of sustaining life?

Dont know, but hundreds are found every month and that rate is only going to increase with the launching of a new "telescope"...

The Kepler Telescope is also due to be completed, and its only mission will be to look for inhabitable planets in solar systems around distant stars. Working in approximately the same field of research, the Allen Telescope Array will feature 42 radio scopes, which will listen day and night for extra-terrestrial messages that might be on their way from another star.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/2009-Will-Be-a-Huge-Year-for-Space-Observations-101809.shtml

There is also another telescope to be completed before the end of the decade (the name fails me) that will be able to see the absolute limit an optical telescope can. Meaning, this telescope will see as far as we will ever be able to using only lenses. The analogy I remember was from Earth orbit, you could read the license plate of a car on Mars with ease.

Point is, there are habitable planets in the universe. Hundreds discovered every month. There are so many in fact, that billions of dollars of government and private money is spent on the search for them.

Why is there an assumption that just because a planet is habitable that life automatically will spring from it?

I dont believe that to be assumed. I think that is the "I dont know" portion of this equation. If bacterial life is found on some meteor/planet, it will prove without a doubt that life is very common. If even basic "life" is common in inhospitable conditions of a meteor or even Mars, then its pretty safe to assume that life is much more adaptable and less delicate than we thought.

Thats all. We arent there yet...maybe we never will be. Maybe we are the only known life in the Universe. If so, that is one gigantic waste of space.

Blake

04-29-2009, 02:24 PM

Dont know, but hundreds are found every month and that rate is only going to increase with the launching of a new "telescope"...

Point is, there are habitable planets in the universe. Hundreds discovered every month. There are so many in fact, that billions of dollars of government and private money is spent on the search for them.

Name the nearest planet to Earth known to be capable of sustaining human life.

If bacterial life is found on some meteor/planet, it will prove without a doubt that life is very common.

Fermi's Paradox

If so, that is one gigantic waste of space.

If God exists, then I would want to ask why the waste of space.

If not, then we are here by some crazy freak accident, with the chances of being duplicated in the same manner being "astronomically" low.

iilluzioN

04-29-2009, 02:40 PM

Warning, it's a bit graphic!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

http://www.ovni007.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/alien_existant_.jpg

If you look in the lower left corner, you will see that there is another body on the picture..... I can understand that some people might want to fake an alien, but why make two, and only post pictures of one of them?
Furthermore, the head shape really reminds me of the starchild skull...

Despite criticism from established science, the skull has gathered great interest within the study of alien life....
Some people think that it is the skull of an alien, or a human/alien hybrid, based on the shape of the skull bearing similarities to the common representation of aliens as "grays"

Blake

04-29-2009, 02:42 PM

great

BacktoBasics

04-29-2009, 02:43 PM

Probably a still born baby or twins with harlequin syndrome. They are often used to represent alien like creatures.

DarkReign

04-29-2009, 03:48 PM

Name the nearest planet to Earth known to be capable of sustaining human life.

Re-reading what I wrote...what a stupid thing to say. I forgot the keyword, "...there could be habitable planets in the universe".

Next generation of telescopes will answer these questions about possible atmospheres and even water.

I stand corrected. To answer your question directly, there are no known habitable planets.