Saying what you mean is kinda important.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
'No evidence' for extraterrestrials, says White House,....
- Thread starter phlogistician
- Start date
Saying what you mean is kinda important.
To my reply to Arioch, I have stated;
''He explains that life may have a different chemistry to ourselves. As we have seen so far, it is not that life is argued not to be in abundance over the vast of the cosmos - but rather complex organic life will not be. They do recognize that the Drake Equation predicts that there should be around a million intelligent civilizations in our galaxy alone.
It makes NO such prediction.
Indeed, the Drake equation only lists the various things that need to be understood to answer the question but we have no idea of the values for most of the variables.
Of course, my arguement doesn't need a great amount of civilizations. The arguement I pose requires only one civilization who have had a jump-start in evolution to us. One of the scientists above suggested that
''life appeared very quickly - probably before 3.8 billion years ago''
But intelligent life didn't appear very quickly. Indeed it took well over 4 Billion years.
Now, if there was stable galaxies in the universe after 200 million years had passed, then let us give about the same kind of reasonable length of time. Let's say after 2 billion years, we have our imaginary civilization a further 4 billion years, just rounding it up for good measure. Then let us add just another few billion years on top of this, to allow some room for error..
This would mean that after 8 billion years using this figure, you can expect there is a possibility that there is a civilization that has evolved sufficiently so their brains where of high intellect.
But planets didn't form so quickly.
Rough estimate is about 8 billion years after the Big Bang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
Taking the estimate of when life began on earth, about 4 billion years ago a prokaryote lifeform appeared on Earth. Since then life has simply flourished, atleast 5 times. These have been known as the great mass extinctions. The Homo genus appeared around 2.4 million years ago. The Biotic crisis events (the great mass extinctions) happened most likely within a period of about 30 million years, give or take a few million years. Macrobiotic life still found away, which just shows how stubborn life is when the conditions are perfect for it to live on.
Going back to our figures, I decided that after 8 billion years you might expect there be existing some alien civilization with a reasonable intellect.
Nope, you jumped the gun by about 4 billion years.
My final words on this subject will be, that consider that there is probably around 400-600 billion stars in our galaxy alone. This consists of about 50 billion planets where about 500 million of these planets could exist within a habital zone next to their nieghbouring star; then take into consideration there is about 200-400 billion stars in our galaxy alone.
You know, it helps to be consistent.
But that number is not that helpful.
Lots of them do not appear conducive to life.
In the entire universe, there is around 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe. A recent estimate is that it might be even higher, around 500 billion! Knowing that there is 100 billion stars per galaxy gives an approximate total of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars altogether in the universe. Now, if you think life is rare, then you must think there is some kind of God involved in all of this, or that humans are so special, that we might as well be selfish to think that we are the only life forms out there. ''
Interstellar travel is difficult enough within our Galaxy.
Travel over millions of light years to another Galaxy is really stretching it.
There might be life in other Galaxies but the chance of them coming to OUR Galaxy is extremely unlikely to start with. Coming to a unremarkable star like ours even less likely to the point of being absurd.
To this, I would like to add we have actually uncovered some possible Earth-Like candidates by studying their blue atmosphere.
You are just making this BS up.
We have yet to find a single Earth Like planet with an ocean and atmosphere.
(of course we are just starting to look, but still, none have yet been found)
Life should not be as rare as he erreneously contemplates. Also take into consideration that that these planets we have identified with rigourous studies that there should be even more planets than this in our galaxy. The idea that life has possibilities that are extremely high in other part of our gaalxy are increasing each time we decide to study some part of it.
Actually, we haven't seen anything that indicates that life is not rare.
We are still at just one planet with life on it.
It makes NO such prediction.
Indeed, the Drake equation only lists the various things that need to be understood to answer the question but we have no idea of the values for most of the variables.
But intelligent life didn't appear very quickly. Indeed it took well over 4 Billion years.
But planets didn't form so quickly.
Rough estimate is about 8 billion years after the Big Bang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
Nope, you jumped the gun by about 4 billion years.
You know, it helps to be consistent.
But that number is not that helpful.
Lots of them do not appear conducive to life.
Interstellar travel is difficult enough within our Galaxy.
Travel over millions of light years to another Galaxy is really stretching it.
There might be life in other Galaxies but the chance of them coming to OUR Galaxy is extremely unlikely to start with. Coming to a unremarkable star like ours even less likely to the point of being absurd.
You are just making this BS up.
We have yet to find a single Earth Like planet with an ocean and atmosphere.
(of course we are just starting to look, but still, none have yet been found)
Actually, we haven't seen anything that indicates that life is not rare.
We are still at just one planet with life on it.
The Drake equation has now been modified. Without modification, the Drake equation has also been exponentially increased according to NASA scientists, with their discovery of life eating arsenic. (did I spell that right lol)
Anyway,
''But intelligent life didn't appear very quickly. Indeed it took well over 4 Billion years. ''
this is correct, or atleast with current understanding. Intelligent life, if my memory serves did not appear until very late on, atleast 190,000 years ago according to fossil records, to a woman born in Africa.
Life however, spread very quickly, very early, and through a success of five mass extinctions, which would make the Panspermia Theory unlikely, since all life is appreciated to be exterminated, unless throughout these five extinctions, life reamerged from five equidistant impacts from meteors.
But planets didn't form so quickly.
Rough estimate is about 8 billion years after the Big Bang.
Totally wrong. We have traced galaxy formations to much early standards than that. The real question is how long a galaxy should take to form. I have predicted we will find even earlier galaxies which will shake the foundations of Big Bang.
You know, it helps to be consistent.
But that number is not that helpful.
Lots of them do not appear conducive to life.
Where do you get your information?
According to Michio Kaku, we have studied to a good degree, around 500 planets, out of which 5 planets could sustain life. The Goldilocks Planets, as they are called.
These are again, 5 out of 500. Figure the statistics I gave you. Atleast a good million planets should be habital in our galaxy alone.
I cannot be arsed retorting the rest of your post. Total rubbish!
The Drake equation has now been modified. Without modification, the Drake equation has also been exponentially increased according to NASA scientists, with their discovery of life eating arsenic. (did I spell that right lol)
The issue is you claimed that
Mister said:the Drake Equation predicts that there should be around a million intelligent civilizations in our galaxy alone.
But the Drake Equation itself makes NO such prediction.
Mister said:Life however, spread very quickly, very early, and through a success of five mass extinctions, which would make the Panspermia Theory unlikely, since all life is appreciated to be exterminated, unless throughout these five extinctions, life reamerged from five equidistant impacts from meteors.
No, it was the same original life.
As far as we know, life only formed ONCE on this planet, which considering it's age suggests that the conditions for abiogenesis are not the same as what are conducive to life itself. That the transition from life forming to live surviving is not a given.
Mister said:adoucette said:But planets didn't form so quickly.
Rough estimate is about 8 billion years after the Big Bang.
Totally wrong. We have traced galaxy formations to much early standards than that. The real question is how long a galaxy should take to form. I have predicted we will find even earlier galaxies which will shake the foundations of Big Bang.
Galaxy formation isn't the same as planet formation.
As my link suggests, this took about 8 Billion years after the big bang.
Mister said:adoucette said:You know, it helps to be consistent.
But that number is not that helpful.
Lots of them do not appear conducive to life.
Where do you get your information?
Well from science articles mainly, and most recently from Kepler's findings.
http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/
Mister said:According to Michio Kaku, we have studied to a good degree, around 500 planets, out of which 5 planets could sustain life. The Goldilocks Planets, as they are called.
These are again, 5 out of 500. Figure the statistics I gave you. Atleast a good million planets should be habital in our galaxy alone.
Except that's not true.
We have found 1,235 planet candidates and of that we have identified 22 actual planets and of that a single planet that we can say with any degree of confidence, could sustain life. See NASA Kepler Mission Discoveries link.
Kepler 22b was the first detection of a potentially habitable world orbiting a Sun-like star, scientists reported in findings to be published in The Astrophysical Journal.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/uk-space-planet-idUSLNE7B501D20111206
BUT, it still is highly improbable since Kepler 22b is nothing like earth, it's ~2.4 times the size and ~15 times as heavy, thus much too heavy for plate tectonics and releases of gasses that can form atmospheres/oceans.
By the way, life emerged 4 billion years ago, not intelligent life per se. You were also wrong on that account. All humans emerged from some shrew-like creature, 4 billion years ago.
Really?
That's your story and you are sticking to it?
If so you are totally bonkers.
The issue is you claimed that
But the Drake Equation itself makes NO such prediction.
No, it was the same original life.
As far as we know, life only formed ONCE on this planet, which considering it's age suggests that the conditions for abiogenesis are not the same as what are conducive to life itself. That the transition from life forming to live surviving is not a given.
Galaxy formation isn't the same as planet formation.
As my link suggests, this took about 8 Billion years after the big bang.
Well from science articles mainly, and most recently from Kepler's findings.
http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/
Except that's not true.
We have found 1,235 planet candidates and of that we have identified 22 actual planets and of that a single planet that we can say with any degree of confidence, could sustain life. See NASA Kepler Mission Discoveries link.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/uk-space-planet-idUSLNE7B501D20111206
BUT, it still is highly improbable since Kepler 22b is nothing like earth, it's ~2.4 times the size and ~15 times as heavy, thus much too heavy for plate tectonics and releases of gasses that can form atmospheres/oceans.
Actually, the drake equation predicts our galaxy is teeming with life.
Stop wasting my time, please!
Go learn on these subjects before you talk about them.
The very fact you are arguing with me about the origin of life not being 4 billion years ago, give or take a few thousand years, is just an example of your stupidity!
GO AWAY!
Except that's not true.
We have found 1,235 planet candidates and of that we have identified 22 actual planets and of that a single planet that we can say with any degree of confidence, could sustain life. See NASA Kepler Mission Discoveries link.
Well that is a fascinating figure, considering we have only searched a small part of the universe, indeed, much less more than a corner of our own galaxy! If this figure is true, then it weighs in my favor, not yours! LOL
We have found 1,235 planet candidates and of that we have identified 22 actual planets and of that a single planet that we can say with any degree of confidence, could sustain life. See NASA Kepler Mission Discoveries link.
Well that is a fascinating figure, considering we have only searched a small part of the universe, indeed, much less more than a corner of our own galaxy! If this figure is true, then it weighs in my favor, not yours! LOL
Galaxy formation isn't the same as planet formation.
As my link suggests, this took about 8 Billion years after the big bang.
To have a galaxy is to have planetary formations. Stars ect. Even a black hole at their center.
Now, the habitability of these planets will be few and far between. Very early on, these planets where hostile and mostly barren to macroscopic life.
As my link suggests, this took about 8 Billion years after the big bang.
To have a galaxy is to have planetary formations. Stars ect. Even a black hole at their center.
Now, the habitability of these planets will be few and far between. Very early on, these planets where hostile and mostly barren to macroscopic life.
Galaxy formation isn't the same as planet formation.
As my link suggests, this took about 8 Billion years after the big bang.
To have a galaxy is to have planetary formations. Stars ect. Even a black hole at their center.
Now, the habitability of these planets will be few and far between. Very early on, these planets where hostile and mostly barren to macroscopic life.
Nope, Stars are virtually all hydrogen.
Over very long periods of time they create the heavier elements necessary for planet formation and so the fact is Planets take MUCH longer to start forming than do Galaxies and Stars.
I gave you the link. Learn to actually READ.
Actually, the drake equation predicts our galaxy is teeming with life.
No, it doesn't.
It simply lists the values one would consider for there to be other life we could communicate with, but makes NO PREDICTIONS about the actual values.
Indeed, back when Drake first came up with it he plugged in his GUESSES and came up with TEN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
You need to take your own advice because your reading comprehension SUCKS.Mister said:Stop wasting my time, please!
Go learn on these subjects before you talk about them.
The very fact you are arguing with me about the origin of life not being 4 billion years ago, give or take a few thousand years, is just an example of your stupidity!
GO AWAY!
I didn't ever say that life didn't form about 4 billion years ago.
I said INTELLIGENT life took nearly 4 billion years to develop.
Remember we were talking about the Drake Equation, and one of the variables is fi:
fi = the fraction of the planets that develop life that actually go on to develop intelligent life is one of the key variables for which we have NO IDEA what value is likely.
Last edited:
Yeah stars are mostly hydrogen, actually a basis of about 5 elements.
But what has that got to do with our discussion?
Simple, you made this BOGUS claim:
The age of the universe is 15 billion years old. The universe cooled down and created stable orbiting planets at just over 200 million years old. That leaves still a large amount of time for any civilization to begin evolving.
Others pointed out that you added a billion years or so to the age of the Universe.
No biggy, but your big error was creating planets so fast.
I pointed out that planets didn't form for ~8 Billion years, not the 200 million years that you claimed.
8 billion years
Finally, objects on the scale of our solar system form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
You are embarrasing yourself
''50 million habitable-zone exoplanets in the Milky Way''
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucapdki/numberofhabs.html
''50 million habitable-zone exoplanets in the Milky Way''
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucapdki/numberofhabs.html
And give up with the galaxy formation. My information was extracted from NASA. I gave it about 4 billion years I think, when galaxies formed?
This one roughly estimates 5 billion years
''These galaxies started forming just 500 million years after the big bang''
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100105-earliest-galaxies-hubble-deep-universe/
This one roughly estimates 5 billion years
''These galaxies started forming just 500 million years after the big bang''
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100105-earliest-galaxies-hubble-deep-universe/
Except that's not true.
We have found 1,235 planet candidates and of that we have identified 22 actual planets and of that a single planet that we can say with any degree of confidence, could sustain life. See NASA Kepler Mission Discoveries link.
Well that is a fascinating figure, considering we have only searched a small part of the universe, indeed, much less more than a corner of our own galaxy! If this figure is true, then it weighs in my favor, not yours! LOL
It doesn't actually favor anything.
The going presumption has always been that planet formation isn't unlikely.
Indeed, in Drake's original assumptions that came up with 10 planets in our Galaxy that had intelligent communicating life, he guessed:
fp = 0.5 (half of all stars formed will have planets)
ne = 2 (stars with planets will have 2 planets capable of developing life)
Well what Kepler is showing is that his guess on fp was way too high (still too early to tell what the number is, but remember we are looking at ~170,000 stars and so far have ~1,200 candidates and only 22 confirmed planets (while this number will go up, but it is not looking like it will be anywhere near the 80,000 you would need for fp to equal 0.5)
ne = 2 appears to be VASTLY over stated, indeed, the number remains at 0 and is looking to be more like .2
Now remember, Drake put in one value that is highly unlikely, that every planet that could sustain life WILL develop life.
fl = 1 (100% of these planets will develop life)
So the net is that just with these two variables being over stated and even giving him the fl=1, his estimate of 10 shrinks down to maybe a chance of ~.01 that there is another communicating civilization within our Galaxy.
You are embarrasing yourself
''50 million habitable-zone exoplanets in the Milky Way''
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucapdki/numberofhabs.html
LOL, Except that's an extrapolation based on a lot of assumptions, not based on actual knowledge and more importantly wasn't a claim that I was disputing
You posted this:
According to Michio Kaku, we have studied to a good degree, around 500 planets, out of which 5 planets could sustain life.
To which I replied:
Except that's not true.
We have found 1,235 planet candidates and of that we have identified 22 actual planets and of that a single planet that we can say with any degree of confidence, could sustain life. See NASA Kepler Mission Discoveries link.
So NO, we have not studied 500 planets to a good degree and we certainly don't know of 5 that could sustain life.
And don't expect that all those candidates will be real.
Kepler generates a lot of false positives
http://archive.stsci.edu/kepler/false_positives.html