• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

alien life possibility is pathetic

Reality check, just because the universe is big doesnt prove anything. It can be big, and empty of space. Our universe is big! Whoa, big deal, Its also big and DEADLY. Incredibly hostile, and the fact that not one shred of any kind of et life so far is damning.

So we should stop looking? Your statement is as ridiculous as the following:

"Honey, I can't find my car keys."
"Did you look under the couch?"
"Yes. It's the only place I checked!"
"Well, stop looking then... they're lost for good. I'll put the car up for sale on Craigslist"

As well, by your logic, we should now end finding cures for AIDS, MS, MD, etc. I mean, gosh - if they haven't found a cure yet then they never will, right?

Monster
 
Last edited:
makaya325 said:
I am fully aware of everyone on the forum believing ufo's are simply man made and made up, But im talking about et life. Isnt it so ignorant and wooish to suggest that we arent the only life in the universe? Come on, does anyone see the incredibly complex events on earth that made it even POSSIBLE for the simplest of life to form? How can anyone believe it is even possible for 100's of unique events to happen just right on other planets. You need the right sun, the right planet size, the right galaxy, the right moon, etc and the list goes on and on from there. Why do many of you fall for the et life credibility?
Click to expand...

Reasoning from a sample of one is pretty sketchy. The only life we know about is the life on earth. We actually don't know whether our kind of life, based on water, protein and DNA is the only kind of life possible. Even if it is, there are other planets and moons in our own solar system that might support it (Mars, Europa, Iapetus). This, so far, is unproven. We also don't know how common it is for multicellular life to evolve, or intelligence sufficient to develop technology. The fact that both events took a significant fraction of the habitable life of the Earth suggests that they might be rare, but then again, maybe the Earth is just a bit slow.

Also, given the immensity of the universe, it seams pretty unlikely that life only happened on Earth. Even if the proper conditions are extremely rare, one planet per galaxy, or even a per hundred galaxies still results in a lot of life in the universe, albeit almost no chance that we will ever make contact.
 
Carl Sagan was quite fond of his Billions.
And Johnny Carson was quite funny.
The whole real phrase...from the man himself.
A galaxy is composed of gas and dust and stars, Billions upon Billions of stars.
 
makaya325 said:
Please listen: The fact that life on earth was a freaking miracle proves that, despite many galaxies, alien life in no shape or form could ever exist. I would wager that 90% of members on jref would agree.
Click to expand...

This same logic could be used to make the case that life couldn't have occurred on Earth.

The fact that it has proves there is a problem with the logic.

Sunstealer said:
The universe is big. Very big. Infact, it's so big that us human beings find it absolutely mind boggling, that is; it's far too big for our minds to grasp. The Milky Way (Our galaxy) is 1000 light years deep and 100,000 light years wide comprising an estimated minimum of 200 Billion stars.
Click to expand...

Douglas Adams: Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space. :D


makaya325 said:
Galaxy, the 100 billion galaxy # is highly exxagerated. The most accurate estimates range from a couple billion to 50 billion at the most
Click to expand...

I'd tend to think NASA would be a pretty good expert to refer to. They say 100 billion.

And that's just our galaxy.


As of the writing of this article there are more than 200 known planets. One of them is known to have life. So, at the moment, the odds of life occurring can be said to be about 0.5%. Of course, the more planets that are discovered, the lower those odds get. However, the sheer number of planets likely to be out there makes the existence of life quite probable. Multiple times, in fact.

In fact, I'll bet that before my kids have kids (they are now 8 and 10), evidence of life will be found within our own solar system.
 
No, desert, i am not a troll. I havent fell into the ongoing modern belief that alien life is a certainty, which it isnt. You seem to think "oh, rocky planet and water, means life", which in reality, is not true at all. It cant be near any super novas, has to have the right sun (sorry, red dwarfs wont cut it), galaxy must be spiral to allow complex life to evolve, should have a moon, stable axis, magnetic field, plate tectonics, i can go all day naming neccessary factors.
 
makaya325 said:
No, desert, i am not a troll. I havent fell into the ongoing modern belief that alien life is a certainty, which it isnt. You seem to think "oh, rocky planet and water, means life", which in reality, is not true at all. It cant be near any super novas, has to have the right sun (sorry, red dwarfs wont cut it), galaxy must be spiral to allow complex life to evolve, should have a moon, stable axis, magnetic field, plate tectonics, i can go all day naming neccessary factors.
Click to expand...

Please be so kind as to point out where I said that.
 
No, desert, Im talking to the majority of the people, Who all dont critically examine the problems with alien life even existing. Its obvious that, despite god being factually non-existent, life on earth must have been a natural freak accident. We have won the cosmic lotto. The universe is mostly a dead zone for life, and very very few areas could hold life, but those areas are mostly in bad galaxies, bad stars lacking in metalicity
 
Wow, you are incredibly wise and knowledgable about all things in the universe.
More so than me and the "majority of people."
It is therefore useless for me to continue to discuss anything with you.
 
Desert, thats not true. I wanted to bring to everyone the reasons not to suggest alien life is likely, because as each factor is applied, it shrinks, over and over, until its less than 1
 
makaya325 said:
No, desert, Im talking to the majority of the people, Who all dont critically examine the problems with alien life even existing.
Click to expand...

But you're not really talking about "alien" life. You merely keep giving what you consider requirements as they apply to life on earth. You have no idea what would be required for alien life.
 
Last edited:
makaya325 said:
No, desert, i am not a troll. I havent fell into the ongoing modern belief that alien life is a certainty, which it isnt. You seem to think "oh, rocky planet and water, means life", which in reality, is not true at all. It cant be near any super novas, has to have the right sun (sorry, red dwarfs wont cut it), galaxy must be spiral to allow complex life to evolve, should have a moon, stable axis, magnetic field, plate tectonics, i can go all day naming neccessary factors.
Click to expand...

Once at a time again:
It cant be near any super novas
Yes it can. A nearby supernova would be an extiction event on Earth, but not a total extinction event. There'd be plenty of life left and evolution could continue.
has to have the right sun (sorry, red dwarfs wont cut it),
Explain to me why a red dwarf would not cut it. It would be better in the long run due to its longer life. If you're going to use water as a solvent, you just have to be closer by.
galaxy must be spiral to allow complex life to evolve,
No it doesn't. Milky Way and Andromeda will merge sometime down the road. This will likely result in star formation. Why would planets around those stars be unable to evolve complex life?
should have a moon,
Absolutely unnessecary, especially for oceanic life. 2 (3 if you count Titan) of the cantidates for finding life in this solar system ARE moons.
stable axis,
Only if your life is very sensitive to temperature. There's plenty on Earth that isn't. Also, stable axis seems to be common. All the planets and large moons in our solar system have one.
magnetic field,
Our magnetic field has changed over time. There's no reason to need one. We evolved in an environment that had a lot of radiation blocked by the magnetic field and thus are sensitive to that radiation. There's no reason to think that life couln't evolve without that sensitivity.
plate tectonics,
I can't even begin to imagine why this would be necessary. Perhaps you could enlighten us.
 
http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/DJCrossley/uniquearth/refactors.htm

The metallicity of stars declines, and metals (which in astronomy means all elements other than hydrogen and helium) are necessary to the formation of terrestrial planets.
The X-ray and gamma ray radiation from the black hole at the galactic center, and from nearby neutron stars and quasars, becomes less intense. Radiation of this nature is considered dangerous to complex life, hence the Rare Earth hypothesis predicts that the early universe, and likewise regions in the galaxy at present where the stellar density is high and supernovae common, will be unfit for the development of complex life.[4]
Gravitational perturbation of planets and planetesimals by nearby stars becomes less likely as the density of stars decreases. Hence the further a planet lies from the galactic center, the less likely it is to be struck by a large bolide. A sufficiently large impact may extinguish all complex life on a planet.
 
Just to add to the discussion, the number you all cited are for the OBSERVABLE universe. As of now we can only evaluate the lowest minimal size of the universe if it is LIMITED in size (and that is at at least 30 or something billion year radius). Again that is the minimum size, the actual one could be 1000000000 billion lightyear or whatever. Which makes the assertion of Makaya even more funny.
 
Actually, no one has a reason to believe europa is anything but a slushy ocean, not a fully liquid one
 
Aep, scientists have a pretty good understanding of how big the universe is: 13.7 billion lights years. Theres nothing beyond that, nothing outside the universe, just space devoid of life
 
makaya325 said:
http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/DJCrossley/uniquearth/refactors.htm

The metallicity of stars declines, and metals (which in astronomy means all elements other than hydrogen and helium) are necessary to the formation of terrestrial planets.
The X-ray and gamma ray radiation from the black hole at the galactic center, and from nearby neutron stars and quasars, becomes less intense. Radiation of this nature is considered dangerous to complex life, hence the Rare Earth hypothesis predicts that the early universe, and likewise regions in the galaxy at present where the stellar density is high and supernovae common, will be unfit for the development of complex life.[4]
Gravitational perturbation of planets and planetesimals by nearby stars becomes less likely as the density of stars decreases. Hence the further a planet lies from the galactic center, the less likely it is to be struck by a large bolide. A sufficiently large impact may extinguish all complex life on a planet.
Click to expand...

Unless you are moving the goalpost, when we are speaking of alien life we are also speaking simply of alien bacterial life for example. The above is more or less only a limitation of complex form life, and IMHO only if starting from abiogenesis to complex life form take as long as on earth, for which we really have no evidence of that. Our history could have been average time, especially slow or especially rapid. Without comparison impossible to say. Finally, the event cited might kill all et life, but this would not stop the fact et life appeared, contradicting your hypothesis (that no et life exists).
 
makaya325 said:
Aep, scientists have a pretty good understanding of how big the universe is: 13.7 billion lights years.
Click to expand...

You're confusing the size of the visible Universe with the size of the Universe and you're confusing the age of the universe with the size of the visible universe(space is not flat on those scales).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom