NASA finds planets aplenty

[aquatus1]

Close-minded also includes the inability to admit we may be alone.

Nor is the post above technically ignorant. It is foolish, as is any absolute statement regarding the existence or non-existence of alien life, but it can be just as supported with what little we know.

As i said before, the universe is an unbelievably awesome and terrible place. To presume that just because we have a smattering of an idea of how our little insectoid of a planet may have achieved life, we can confidently state that there must be life elsewhere, is simply not logical or reasonable. In fact, it is downright arrogant; "I am, therefore everything else must be!"

Quillius pointed out earlier (one of only two people posting who actually understood the argument), that it is not merely time that is an issue. He even was able to give an example regarding the odds that events would happen in a given manner (and only using three variables at that!). In addition to his 3,000,000,000 - 1 odds or whatever he figures, I will also add that not only does that have to occur in order for live to exist, but additionally, in order for the aliens to actually be visiting Earth, it has to happen during the specific time period that we humans not only evolved, but actually developed the technology to be able to conceive of extraterrestrials.

So it isn't just that we really don't know how life began on Earth, and it isn't just that we don't know if there is a specific sequence that has to be followed, or a specific environment has to exist, or that life can occur with any other particular element, or that there isn't some universal law forbidding life that we just managed to find a protected crack in existence from...no, on top of all that, we also have to think that the life on other planets developed to the point that both of us, galaxies apart, are alive and technologically advanced at the same microscopic interval in the 13.5 billion year life of the universe.

Could there be life out there in the universe? There may be. But it is not definite, and it is certainly not inevitable.

The universe is just too big, and we are just too small, to be able to make any absolute statement about it.

[d e v i c e]

As time goes by and more and more planets are observed in the habitable zones, it will become common place for people to think of life, even intelligent life, existing 'out there' in the universe. We may be alone, but I highly doubt it.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Evilution13

[aquatus1]

It is already common place. The real question is whether it is reasonable.

[d e v i c e]

It is already common place. The real question is whether it is reasonable.

Well then its common place because people think IS reasonable.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Evilution13

[aquatus1]

But, as I said before, is it reasonable for the right reason? Is it reasonable because because people understand the math and science behind it? Or is it reasonable in the same way that a large part of the population accepts creationism, in a let's-not-be-confrontational, all-opinions-are-equal, way?

Or did I post that in a different thread...I may be getting my threads mixed up...

[d e v i c e]

I hear you. Then speaking for myself, I do understand the science for the most part (the math needs to be explained to me) but at the end of the day I need to form my own understanding. Thats how I am. My conviction (and probably a bit of arrogance too *shrugs*) causes me to stand by my understanding. Same with you maybe?

[aquatus1]

No doubt. After all, my claim that life may well be non-existent or rare is just as faith-based as anything else. Really, the only absolute claim we can make is that we just don't know.

I would be overjoyed, however, to hear about a non-organic lifeform. That would pretty much swing me to the believer side of the fence.

[realmcutter]

how much does it cost to name one? cause i got some great ideas and friends i want to emberas

[d e v i c e]

*smiles* Don't look at me.

[mcrom901]

As far as we understand life, Earth had the best possible conditions in the universe for life to happen, and even in these ideal conditions life has only happened once. We can trace all existing life down to some simple cells that evolved into larger organisms. There is no evidence that life ever happened a second time even though conditions continued to be ideal for that to happen. Why didn't other life ever appear in these conditions and evolve independently?

That strongly indicates that the odds of life appearing even in the most ideal conditions is extremely low. In the case of Earth, it was literally a single event that never happened again. We don't know exactly what that event or series of events were but we know that in billions of years they never happened again.

but what is the basis for your dogmatic certainty that multiple genesis did not occur & that it was ONLY a single event?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro5q7SVDB6s

[aquatus1]

Trotting out "dogmatic" a bit early, aren't you Mcrom? You sure you want to top yourself out already?

[DONTEATUS]

This entire Forum is just waiting for News of Life from outside our Hood ! And Its out there ,We just need to look a bit futher.

Knowing and Believing have a Lot in common.

[mcrom901]

Trotting out "dogmatic" a bit early, aren't you Mcrom? You sure you want to top yourself out already?

not sure about that.... i subscribe to catmas, which are relative meta beliefs....

[Delta 9]

This entire Forum is just waiting for News of Life from outside our Hood ! And Its out there ,We just need to look a bit futher.

Knowing and Believing have a Lot in common.

Well, as nice as it would be that it's all of us, I have a sneaking suspicion that not all of us are convinced and waiting. And besides, unless we are all destroyed in a super nova or some other cosmic event before we can find out if there are aliens or not, then it's just a matter of waiting and watching.

[aquatus1]

not sure about that.... i subscribe to catmas, which are relative meta beliefs....

I don't trust cats, even if they pretend to celebrate the birth of Christ.

[mcrom901]

I don't trust cats, even if they pretend to celebrate the birth of Christ.

me too... in some sense...

[psyche101]

Well, the Universe is estimated to be apx. 13.5 to 14 billion years old. The number of stars in the visible Universe is now estimated to be 300 sextillion, or 3 trillion times 100 billion. That gives us, dare I say, considerable opportunity and time for life to have arisen elsewhere.

However, the bottom line is that nobody really knows for sure either way. We can pull up odds all we want, but that only gets us back to square one...nobody really knows for sure.

Exactly, nobody knows for sure, although it seems highly likely that other life will exist, it seems highly likely to us. If we do have a Universal Goldilocks zone, in additional to a solar system goldilocks zone, the odds left over from the vast count might end up really quite small.

Laws of physics may change across the universe

New evidence supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is "just right" for our existence. The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos.

If correct, this result stands against Einstein's equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. "This finding was a real surprise to everyone," says John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Webb is lead author on the new paper, which has been submitted to Physical Review Letters.

Even more surprising is the fact that the change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a "preferred direction", or axis, across the cosmos. That idea was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein's special theory of relativity.

LINK - New Scientist

Like you say, it is anyones guess at this point! It does not have to be one, it does not have to be the other, such exciting times ahead as missions such as Kepler offer titbit's of evidence to patch together.

[mcrom901]

in some sense

A basic catma is that "All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." Now don't take that catma to be really true, it's true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.

[aquatus1]

*shrugs*

Might be true...

[EternalBlizzard]

yeah i wonder what life would be there are they advance than us or not

[Space Commander Travis]

People talk about the "ingredients for life" as if life just happens like a chemical reaction when you mix some stuff together. We know that's not true. We do know that life required extremely unusual conditions to appear on Earth.

As far as we understand life, Earth had the best possible conditions in the universe for life to happen, and even in these ideal conditions life has only happened once. We can trace all existing life down to some simple cells that evolved into larger organisms. There is no evidence that life ever happened a second time even though conditions continued to be ideal for that to happen. Why didn't other life ever appear in these conditions and evolve independently?

That strongly indicates that the odds of life appearing even in the most ideal conditions is extremely low. In the case of Earth, it was literally a single event that never happened again. We don't know exactly what that event or series of events were but we know that in billions of years they never happened again.

With these dismal odds we have to hope that Earth is not the ideal place for life to appear in. Perhaps other planets are more ideal in ways we wouldn't understand and life has a better chance of appearing on them. Unfortunately what we know about our solar system doesn't give us much hope for this.

Well, I suppose I'm just not rigorous enough, but I really don't understand these mathematical arguments. What we know, as I said previously, is that life has developed, some would say even intelligent life, on one out of nine planets we really know anything at all about. So isn't that odds of at least 1 in 9, with a suitable sun? I don't understand why you're saying that the odds are extremely low? And why is it important that there is no evidence that life ever happened a second time? What in fact does that mean? Surely there wouldn't have been any opportunity, or any need, for it to do so, with all the life already here? Why does this mean that the odds dismal and depressing?

[aquatus1]

Well, I suppose I'm just not rigorous enough, but I really don't understand these mathematical arguments. What we know, as I said previously, is that life has developed, some would say even intelligent life, on one out of nine planets we really know anything at all about. So isn't that odds of at least 1 in 9, with a suitable sun?

Nah, the problem is that you are not using equal variables. If we had 9 planets all in the Goldilocks zone, then maybe, but with planets all representing radically different environments and situations, they cannot be compared at all, let alone as simply as that. Heck, if we are using life on Earth as a basis, we can say that there is absolutely 0% chance of life developing on Mercury, for instance, no matter how long you wait.

And even then, you threw in the word "intelligent". See, if we start to think about intelligent life, then we have to figure in that in the 3.5 billion years worth of evolution, we only just now in the last 100,000 years got to a couple of species that could be considered to be civilization level intelligence, and one of those died out. In other words, how many billions of species did it take to come out with just one intelligent one?

The fundamental error is that you aren't comparing like variables.

[torf]

aquatus 1..that was the first time I laughed out loud today. The cat joke. FUNNY STUFF!!

[quillius]

Well, I suppose I'm just not rigorous enough, but I really don't understand these mathematical arguments. What we know, as I said previously, is that life has developed, some would say even intelligent life, on one out of nine planets we really know anything at all about. So isn't that odds of at least 1 in 9, with a suitable sun? I don't understand why you're saying that the odds are extremely low? And why is it important that there is no evidence that life ever happened a second time? What in fact does that mean? Surely there wouldn't have been any opportunity, or any need, for it to do so, with all the life already here? Why does this mean that the odds dismal and depressing?

Hi 747400, in response to this, and an earlier post (you asked me about the maths)....it certainly is not 9-1.

Ok lets go from the big bang....I know very little about evolution and really need to learn more, anyhow, as I understand it science currently believes that from that point a small organism landed on earth in a certain place and created all life over billions of years?

you have to multiply the odds of every event in the series, going from organism to human life form..the number (odds) will be very large indeed,

we could actually calculate the odds even with variables we would get a rough idea. However the problem arises when we are having to make assumptions of which we do not know. For example....would the same series of events be required? could life have formed anyway, can there be variations of life, how many stars, galaxies etc etc, with all these unknowns we cannot calculate the odds of there being other life, we could however calculate that it is nearly impossible for there to be life exaclty as us (again ignore the time aspect for a minute), if the odds of creating human life through the cycle that happened was 3 billion to 1, then the odds of the exact same happening elsewhere is 3 billion multiplied by 3 billion....basically virtually impossible.

Bottom line is as Aquatus said, we cannot know for sure either way what is the probability, in fact I have changed my stance a little as I recently thought it mathematically impossible for there not to be life elsewhere, I know realise that this may not be the case....although I still believe

[Prab]

Take all the time you need...it's never going to happen.

We are quite alone.

Your confusion lays in the fact you believe probability MUST dictate that there is more life in a vast Universe.But you can keep throwing red socks into a bag but your only ever going to draw red socks from it.

If nothing is there...wishfull thinking won't suffice

If you think that we are alone it would be so much waste of space,,lol,,

Just open your mind and absorb.

"Just because a planet is in the habitable zone doesn't mean it has life. Mars is a good example of that. And even if some these planets are found to contain life, it may not be intelligent life; it could be bacteria or mold or some kind of life form people can't even imagine."

How can they be sure about mars? maybe something is there underneath ..

and How can they possibly say that if the planets are found to contain life it may not be intelligent ? thats simply rubbish and I don't know what made them think this way,, they could be more advanced then us,,