IMO, the best resolution of the Fermi paradox is that there are no other intelligent species in our galaxy.
That is so ridiculously arrogant, it does not even make any sense at all.
IMO, the best resolution of the Fermi paradox is that there are no other intelligent species in our galaxy.
That is so ridiculously arrogant, it does not even make any sense at all.
*SIGH...The study did not suggest that at all.
So... where have you been in the past 3 years of astronomy, cosmology and space exploration? Dormant!? :bugeye:IMO, the best resolution of the Fermi paradox is that there are no other intelligent species in our galaxy.
That conclusion is a complete non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the rest of the article and contradicts the statements by Boss. If the BBC wanted to do some good scientific journalism they would have given some insight into the "recent work at Edinburgh University" rather than just state it without justification. This article is a travesty of scientific reporting.*SIGH...
You are the second person who totally missed the conclusion of the article....![]()
Reading a lot of scientific literature about planet formation that indicates planet formation is a very chaotic process, reading about discoveries of planets that indicate planets that can sustain life as we know it is rare, reading about how life is a fluke even in our solar system (i.e., the importance of the Moon).So... where have you been in the past 3 years of astronomy, cosmology and space exploration? Dormant!?
That is far from the consensus view.Follow the links in that link for several news of the past years suggesting there is an abundance of life in the universe.
HAHA! Ok. So you say that to justify the fact that you totally missed that part of the article.That conclusion is a complete non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the rest of the article and contradicts the statements by Boss. If the BBC wanted to do some good scientific journalism they would have given some insight into the "recent work at Edinburgh University" rather than just state it without justification. This article is a travesty of scientific reporting.
Sounds like you are about a decade behind......Reading a lot of scientific literature about planet formation that indicates planet formation is a very chaotic process, reading about discoveries of planets that indicate planets that can sustain life as we know it is rare, reading about how life is a fluke even in our solar system (i.e., the importance of the Moon).
That doesn't even make any sense!!!!!!Where have you been?
Maybe you should learn how to read?That is far from the consensus view.
Maybe you should learn how to read?
Let's not forget this is journalism. It's not supposed to follow the rules of a scientific paper as in a study.
No one has any idea what the odds are that a planet that could support life will develop life. And we have even less idea what the odds are that a planet with life will develop intelligent life. The odds might be 90%, or 1%, or one in a billion. Any number is as good as any other at this point. That's the problem with the Fermi paradox; the only way to do the calculation is to pull numbers out of thin air, with no evidence to back them up.
I'm not, at least not yet. There is, in my opinion, far too much speculation going on amongst some astronomers. That most planets discovered to date have highly eccentric orbits indicates that we do not yet know enough about planet formation to make the leaps of logic needed to claim that there is, on average, one terrestrial planet per star.I am prepared to accept the possibility that the average number of terrestrial worlds per system is close to one ...
That's the rub. Abiogenesis alone is problematic in terms of the abundance of intelligent life. The conditions have to be right for life to even start. Even if there is on average one terrestrial planet per star system, how do we know that the vast majority of them are not like Venus or Mars rather than Earth-like? Without a large moon to stabilize a planet's rotation (and how likely is that?), Venus-like terrestrial planets may well be the norm (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6839/abs/411767a0.html).... however the class 'terrestrial planet' is not the same as the class 'Earth-like planet', and certainly not the same as the class 'life-bearing planet'. Since we don't know how life emerged on Earth yet, it is entirely possible that the Earth is the only life bearing planet in our galaxy. Abiogenesis may be a very, very rare event.
That is my issue with this stuff. It is pure speculation and the speculators treat their speculations as fact.That is quite a large range of estimates, and makes this sort of speculation completely meaningless.
I fully agree with you to this point of your post.No one has any idea what the odds are that a planet that could support life will develop life. And we have even less idea what the odds are that a planet with life will develop intelligent life. The odds might be 90%, or 1%, or one in a billion. Any number is as good as any other at this point.
I think you are confusing the Fermi paradox with Drake's equation. The Fermi paradox is a simple question: If intelligent life is so abundant in our galaxy, why are we here? It is Drake's equation that invites pulling numbers out of thin air (or bodily orifices), not the Fermi paradox.That's the problem with the Fermi paradox; the only way to do the calculation is to pull numbers out of thin air, with no evidence to back them up.
I'm not having a discussion based on science, I'm having a discussion based on the article I cited. And the article I cited very clearly stated that the study tried to quantify how many intelligent civilizations might be out there and that the research suggested there could be thousands of them! It's right there! I'm paraphrasing the article for God's sake! If he wants to dispute whether ""Recent work at Edinburgh University tried to quantify how many intelligent civilizations might be out there. The research suggested there could be thousands of them. " is written in the article or not, then that's just a matter of whether you know how to read or not! It has nothing to do with science!You might want to lose the attitude; you’re making a fool of yourself.![]()
It is quite clear that DH has more physics and engineering knowledge in his little finger than you do in that entire swiss-cheese-like organ you call a brain.
But please, don’t let me stop you engaging him in debate. It will be highly amusing for everyone to watch you, an accountant or student or whatever you are with your knowledge gained from BBC news stories, try to argue with a physicist/engineer.
Like I said, I don’t necessarily agree with D.H., but he’s clearly arguing from the standpoint of actual knowledge and education. You, on the other hand, are quite clearly some daft punk kid playing at science.
There's also the issue of large moons like Titan or Europa, which might plausibly harbor life. So far as I know, no one has any idea how common these are. It's possible that most of the gas giants we've detected around other stars are littered with hospitable moons, even though the giants themselves probably don't have life. Or maybe not. We just don't know.I'm not, at least not yet. There is, in my opinion, far too much speculation going on amongst some astronomers. That most planets discovered to date have highly eccentric orbits indicates that we do not yet know enough about planet formation to make the leaps of logic needed to claim that there is, on average, one terrestrial planet per star.
You're right, I was mixing them up.I think you are confusing the Fermi paradox with Drake's equation. The Fermi paradox is a simple question: If intelligent life is so abundant in our galaxy, why are we here? It is Drake's equation that invites pulling numbers out of thin air (or bodily orifices), not the Fermi paradox.
Dont hope for a meeting that can turn out to be the end of our civilization in less than it takes match to burn.
IF the study shows that there are thousands of other civilizations, then there's a chance they've already come into contact with one another. Why only destroy ours?
I'm not having a discussion based on science, I'm having a discussion based on the article I cited.
D H: You & I might be the only ones posting at SciForums who do not believe in the existence of many technological civilizations in our galaxy.
BTW: Most of those who believe that ET intelligence is very common seem to ignore the problem of the requirement for a habitable zone in a solar system and the requirement for a habitable zone in a galaxy. The former requirement is well known to many, but the latter is not.