alien life possibility is pathetic

[Z]

The problem I've often noticed being ignored when discussing 'why don't we find intelligent life' is this: not only is space vast, but time is, as well.

The conditions for life might only exist in one out of a trillion planets, but that still ensures a huge number of life forms per galaxy. However, every planet isn't going to (observably) be at the same biological era that we are - or even close. The era of life on earth is a tiny fraction of the lifetime of the planet. Entire space-faring civilizations might have risen, explored the galaxy, and collapsed long enough ago to make any of their remaining artifacts dissolve into dust a billion years before our first ancestors organized enough proteins to replicate.

Then again, it might be a billion years after our planet is cold and dead before the next civilization rises.

I think life elsewhere in the universe is absolutely inevitable - but our chances of discovering concurrent life is nearly zero.

 

[JcR]

I deleted this Picture so I will host it again
Not that it was anything great.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The problem I've often noticed being ignored when discussing 'why don't we find intelligent life' is this: not only is space vast, but time is, as well.
<snip>

I think life elsewhere in the universe is absolutely inevitable - but our chances of discovering concurrent life is nearly zero.

Very good point. It's one I've been harping on in the other thread where I kept using the phrase "the vastness of time of space". By the way, in the Drake Equation time is reflected in factor "L" (how long a civilization lasts)--though I'm not sure how that works mathematically if the final answer "N" is the number of ET intelligences with radio technology.

I have mentioned it on this thread a bit less emphatically:

The point I've been making in that other thread is that "rare" is a relative term. Life could be as "rare" as 1 in a million or even 1 in a billion stars, and that would still mean it occurs 1000 or 100 times in our galaxy alone. Is that "rare" or "commonplace"?

Even if it is as "commonplace" as 1 in a billion stars, it could still be so spread out in space and time that we may never encounter it.

And, as I keep repeating, even if something like the Earth is "rare", it might still happen thousands of times in our galaxy alone (over the course of billions of years). So it's really going out on a limb to declare the Earth to be unique.

While I agree that "unique" isn't what the rare Earth hypothesis argues, I think there are ALSO problems with the rare Earth argument itself.

For one, "rare" is relative. It could be that intelligent life is rare enough that no two forms will ever encounter each other, but still occur thousands of times (spread out in time and space) in our galaxy.

This one is on the Fermi Paradox from a list of possible reasons for why we haven't seen the probes yet.

Y
Or it could have happened, and someone came through our solar system and missed us by a mere million years or so--an eyeblink in geological time, but less than the shadow of an eyeblink in astronomical time.

As you can see, I don't mind the point being made again even more emphatically!

 

[Lonewulf]

However, I feel that for only a certain portion of that time, is life viable.

For instance, it took quite a long time since the beginning of Big Bang, for matter to really get anywhere that even stood a chance of support life. Well, supporting mineral-based life, anyways.

 

[makaya325]

Everybody, MAINSTREAM scientists, like woo drake, think there are at least 10000 of them, which he pulled out of his arse. Shostak certaintly is hanging on to his cult like status- "Looking for ridicolous et life is credible".... not! Did any of you take AP geology and AP biology like i did? If you have, you would agree with the fact that only the uneducated drool about any kind of non-existent advanced life.

Friedman, macabee, clark, etc- Not woo's, but cream of wheats!

 

[Lonewulf]

If your education was worth a damn, you could explain exactly what it is about life that makes it impossible.

As you cannot, you just resort to demonstrably false general statements and appeals to authorities that don't really exist, I am skeptical that your education means a damn. It's one thing to attend a class where concepts are hurled at you. It's another thing to understand, comprehend, and think.

Nice use of ad hominem, though. You'll go far here.

 

[IMST]

Everybody, MAINSTREAM scientists, like woo drake, think there are at least 10000 of them, which he pulled out of his arse. Shostak certaintly is hanging on to his cult like status- "Looking for ridicolous et life is credible".... not! Did any of you take AP geology and AP biology like i did? If you have, you would agree with the fact that only the uneducated drool about any kind of non-existent advanced life.

Friedman, macabee, clark, etc- Not woo's, but cream of wheats!

You're quoting high school classes to prove to us how much smarter you are?

You do realize there's an ASTROPHYSICIST posting in this thread, right?

 

[Lonewulf]

You're quoting high school classes to prove to us how much smarter you are?

You do realize there's an ASTROPHYSICIST posting in this thread, right?

Either

A) He's accusing the astrophysicist of lying, or

B) Maybe he thinks that an astrophysicist gets his degree from high school?

 

[makaya325]

If your education was worth a damn, you could explain exactly what it is about life that makes it impossible.

As you cannot, you just resort to demonstrably false general statements and appeals to authorities that don't really exist, I am skeptical that your education means a damn. It's one thing to attend a class where concepts are hurled at you. It's another thing to understand, comprehend, and think.

Nice use of ad hominem, though. You'll go far here.

1st off, life is very very PRECIOUS. It has to have very specific conditions for it to even exist for a certain amount of time. What are the chances a planet doesnt get affected by a supernova, gamma ray, asteroid, solar flare etc at all for 5 billion straight years? Incredibly small, if not non-existent.

When i asked my biology teacher if life existed out there, he said that it was silly for people to even CONSIDER advanced life possible

 

[makaya325]

Lone, im only 18, still in hs, but hoping to get into bc or vancouver

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Everybody, MAINSTREAM scientists, like woo drake, think there are at least 10000 of them, which he pulled out of his arse. Shostak certaintly is hanging on to his cult like status- "Looking for ridicolous et life is credible".... not! Did any of you take AP geology and AP biology like i did? If you have, you would agree with the fact that only the uneducated drool about any kind of non-existent advanced life.

Friedman, macabee, clark, etc- Not woo's, but cream of wheats!

WTF?

 

[IMST]

Lone, im only 18, still in hs, but hoping to get into bc or vancouver

I hear good things about UBC educationally. I would encourage you to talk to their science departments about this if you go there.

OT: Also, I remember the boys on their ultimate frisbee team being particularly cute back when I was in school.

 

[Lonewulf]

1st off, life is very very PRECIOUS. It has to have very specific conditions for it to even exist for a certain amount of time. What are the chances a planet doesnt get affected by a supernova, gamma ray, asteroid, solar flare etc at all for 5 billion straight years? Incredibly small, if not non-existent.

I'm guessing you don't know what the term "relative" means?

You're really stating that you know for a fact that in all of the billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, that you know that there's a very likely chance that NONE of them carry life?

The more you talk, the more I

When i asked my biology teacher if life existed out there, he said that it was silly for people to even CONSIDER advanced life possible

And my History 1302 teacher tried to convert me into Libertarianism. My Literature instructor was a creationist. My Astronomy instructor said Science was a religion.

Somehow, "my teacher told me..." doesn't impress me.

Show us the facts. Not "what some guy" may or may not have said.

So far, we've demonstrated far more facts, and confronted your questions and challenges, far more than you have ours.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

However, I feel that for only a certain portion of that time, is life viable.

For instance, it took quite a long time since the beginning of Big Bang, for matter to really get anywhere that even stood a chance of support life. Well, supporting mineral-based life, anyways.

Good point.

Still, the time scale is really really vast. We might have just missed another nearby civilization by a mere 1 million years and the lack of evidence would look the same to us. Our lineage evolved from little shrew-like critters in a mere 65 million years or thereabouts. A lot can happen in a relatively short time.

Even if we leave off the first 5 or 10 billion years since the Big Bang, there have still been several billions of years for things to happen.

What Z said. Things could be relatively rare enough (spread out in space and time) that we never encounter another civilization as long as ours lasts, but such intelligences could still happen thousands of times in our own galaxy alone.

The absence of evidence in this case is not evidence of absence. We've got some 35 years of SETI and the ability to detect only a small portion of possible planets in only a very tiny sphere of space around us. We just don't know enough to make the kind of assertion Makaya is making.

 

[Lonewulf]

Lone, im only 18, still in hs, but hoping to get into bc or vancouver

I'm 23, and aiming for a degree in History with a minor in Astronomy. However, I've had quite the few chances to listen to astrophysicists, in the Heidelberg Colloquium, and in the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today forum, as well as listening to various podcasts by professional astronomers. I'm also quite the fan of Carl Sagan, who even to this day, though he may have died, leaves us with many statements of intelligence and wisdom (which you write off as "woo", rather crassly, I should point out.

I also know enough to know that, ultimately, we, collectively, actually know little. We operate off of assumptions based on life we find on this planet. Yet it doesn't strike you -- even for a moment -- that on Earth, we have billions of variations of species, and bacteria that can live in conditions that no one could even dream of...

...yet it doesn't even occur to you that the possibilities of life may be more various, more incredible, than even you can guess?

You don't have much hope in science, at least, when it comes to coming up with new theories. In science, you do require imagination. With none of it, you'll never advance.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

I just love how people take ONE datapoint, and automatically say that it is the only conditions that life can form under... makaya325, the criteria you listed earlier in your posts only apply to earthlike life. That's it! Your earth-centric views are constraining your imagination. How would you make your statements should Mars, Europa, Enceladus, etc. show evidence of some type of life? Heck, what about "flaoting" life on Jupiter? We just cannot fathom the possibilites at this time, so it's ALL speculation. Given what we currently know and understand, some of it is reasonable, some of it is more wistful, but that doesn't invalidate the persuit of scientific study.

You keep saying it "HAS TO HAVE VERY SPECIFIC" conditions. Why?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

1st off, life is very very PRECIOUS. It has to have very specific conditions for it to even exist for a certain amount of time. What are the chances a planet doesnt get affected by a supernova, gamma ray, asteroid, solar flare etc at all for 5 billion straight years? Incredibly small, if not non-existent.

Wha?

All of those things have happened to the Earth, and yet life exists here. Surely you're not suggesting that those items are all necessarily anathema to life? If that's your claim, you're just wrong.

How do you explain life on Earth having survived solar flares, supernovae in the neighborhood, large meteor strikes, etc?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I just love how people take ONE datapoint, and automatically say that it is the only conditions that life can form under... makaya325, the criteria you listed earlier in your posts only apply to earthlike life. That's it!

And probably not even that. I've already shown that the speculation in some of the requirements for life and things that are anathema to life in the rare Earth argument could well work just the other way around.

Another example of one those "requirements": The rare Earthers have said (on the other thread I keep mentioning) that a Mars-like planet is necessary because life must have started there and then seeded the Earth where higher forms are possible. (Presumably, life could start on Mars, but not on Earth, but more complex forms could only develop on Earth and not on Mars.) This is just baseless speculation. It could be that the presence of Mars somehow delayed the development of higher life forms.

 

[Lonewulf]

I wonder why Makaya clings so ridiculously to his certainty. Reminds me of almost religious zeal; maybe if he repeats himself enough times, he might just convince one (maybe even himself).

It's sad, to see a man so much a fundamentalist, that he cannot admit even the possibility of his being wrong... or question his many presumptions.

I also love his use of "scientists!" The same ones that would disagree with most of his assertions, including his assertion that alien species would necessarily go the speed of light.

Going the speed of light is a pipe dream to scientists. Yet Makaya makes it not only a possibility, but a necessity.

 

[Z]

He apparently doesn't read comic books, either.

What about naturally-occuring, non-planetary life? Think the Brood got their living SpaceWhale ships from Earth?

What about non-mineral-based life? Floating amoeboids that feed on hydrogen gas? What about forms of bacteria that need a cool, bloated red supergiant like Betelgeuse to survive? I mean, did you never, ever, ever watch Star Trek?

Heck - there's even a possibility - however faint, however fantastic - that there might exist 'living' planets or nebulae or stars, even. We have only the faintest ideas of what life is, how to define it, how to categorize it. And it's all based on our own carbon-based, earth-bound, limited biases of what we can observe.

Yes, our chances of finding any extra-terrestrial life forms may be near-zero. Yet if we stop looking, our chances are a lot worse.