Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Eldorado

Galaxy probably full of dead civilizations

66 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

South Alabam
25 minutes ago, Eldorado said:

Most of the alien civilizations that ever dotted our galaxy have probably killed themselves off already.

That's the takeaway of a new study, published Dec. 14 to the arXiv database, which used modern astronomy and statistical modeling to map the emergence and death of intelligent life in time and space across the Milky Way.

Their results amount to a more precise 2020 update of a famous equation that Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence founder Frank Drake wrote in 1961.

The Drake equation, popularized by physicist Carl Sagan in his "Cosmos" miniseries, relied on a number of mystery variables — like the prevalence of planets in the universe, then an open question.

Full monty at Live Science: Link

Just think of those that never advanced quick enough to stop their sun from engulfing their planet in its death throws, or didn't take space rocks and debris serious enough. Supposing they existed at all, that is.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
33 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Supposing they existed at all, that is.

Yeah, "probably" is a big word to use about something that only has statistical evidence.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
1 hour ago, Eldorado said:

Most of the alien civilizations that ever dotted our galaxy have probably killed themselves off already.

That's the takeaway of a new study, published Dec. 14 to the arXiv database, which used modern astronomy and statistical modeling to map the emergence and death of intelligent life in time and space across the Milky Way.

Their results amount to a more precise 2020 update of a famous equation that Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence founder Frank Drake wrote in 1961.

The Drake equation, popularized by physicist Carl Sagan in his "Cosmos" miniseries, relied on a number of mystery variables — like the prevalence of planets in the universe, then an open question.

Full monty at Live Science: Link

Thanks for bring this to the forum, it interesting to note that this is based upon the Drake Equation according to the link. This equation is not readily excepted in Acedemic Circles in fact it viewed as speculative and not much more. Below is a Acedemic Peer Reviewed Article in the validity of this equation.

Abstract. The number N of detectable (i.e. communicating) extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy is usually done by using the Drake equation. This equation was established in 1961 by Frank Drake and was the first step to quantifying the SETI field. Practically, this equation is rather a simple algebraic expression and its simplistic nature leaves it open to frequent re- expression An additional problem of the Drake equation is the time-independence of its terms, which for example excludes the effects of the physico-chemical history of the galaxy. Recently, it has been demonstrated that the main shortcoming of the Drake equation is its lack of temporal structure, i.e., it fails to take into account various evolutionary processes. In particular, the Drake equation doesn’t provides any error estimation about the measured quantity. Here, we propose a first treatment of these evolutionary aspects by constructing a simple stochastic process which will be able to provide both a temporal structure to the Drake equation (i.e. introduce time in the Drake formula in order to obtain something like N(t) ) and a first standard error measure. 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.1506.pdf

Thanks for sharing though.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
8 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Yeah, "probably" is a big word to use about something that only has statistical evidence.

It is rather hard to make statistical predictions when you have only one datapoint. 

Once a civilisation is firmly established in space they should be able to counter most threats. We have had a lot of bad things happen to humanity, but we are still here. As long as some people/beings survive a catastrophe history they will most likely bounce back. 

Then again I'm an optimist. :P

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
1 minute ago, Manwon Lender said:

Thanks for bring this to the forum, it interesting to note that this is based upon the Drake Equation according to the link. This equation is not readily excepted in Acedemic Circles in fact it viewed as speculative and not much more. Below is a Acedemic Peer Reviewed Article in the validity of this equation.

Abstract. The number N of detectable (i.e. communicating) extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy is usually done by using the Drake equation. This equation was established in 1961 by Frank Drake and was the first step to quantifying the SETI field. Practically, this equation is rather a simple algebraic expression and its simplistic nature leaves it open to frequent re- expression An additional problem of the Drake equation is the time-independence of its terms, which for example excludes the effects of the physico-chemical history of the galaxy. Recently, it has been demonstrated that the main shortcoming of the Drake equation is its lack of temporal structure, i.e., it fails to take into account various evolutionary processes. In particular, the Drake equation doesn’t provides any error estimation about the measured quantity. Here, we propose a first treatment of these evolutionary aspects by constructing a simple stochastic process which will be able to provide both a temporal structure to the Drake equation (i.e. introduce time in the Drake formula in order to obtain something like N(t) ) and a first standard error measure. 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.1506.pdf

Thanks for sharing though.

 

Frank Drake never intended his equation as a statistical tool. It was invented as a talking point for a SETI meeting.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
1 minute ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

It is rather hard to make statistical predictions when you have only one datapoint. 

Once a civilisation is firmly established in space they should be able to counter most threats. We have had a lot of bad things happen to humanity, but we are still here. As long as some people/beings survive a catastrophe history they will most likely bounce back. 

Then again I'm an optimist. :P

Here is a Peer Reviewed Paper that describes the Drake equation as a worthless data point.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.1506.pdf

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
Just now, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Frank Drake never intended his equation as a statistical tool. It was invented as a talking point for a SETI meeting.  

I am aware of that and that is why in the Scientific Community it is not taken seriously.

Take Care my friend

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
2 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Frank Drake never intended his equation as a statistical tool. It was invented as a talking point for a SETI meeting.  

It is interesting to note though, that while SETI is trying very hard to find intelligent life in the Universe. They have failed in a very big way, they should be focusing their energy at looking for Alien life that has already existed and still exists on Earth. Aliens have popped up on many different occasions during our written history, and we currently have a Allien that is in the press almost every day.:yes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
razman

Well if we haven't killed ourselves off yet , then there is defenitely a chance that some civilizations are still surviving.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
3 hours ago, Eldorado said:

Most of the alien civilizations that ever dotted our galaxy have probably killed themselves off already.

As we will, eventually, either by trashing the planet (as we are doing now) or pathetic tribal wars.

If you think about the expanse and age of the universe, there must be millions of civilizations that have been and gone, and others developing or extant.

 

Edited by acute
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

If stars and planets have lifespans measured in billions of years, and species evolve over millions, is it not possible that a habitable planet might host more than one civilization?  A planet where a wide variety of lifeforms have evolved might have a beneficial environment to create a long lasting niche for a species to evolve whose intelligence is their key to survival.  That niche might be around for much longer than a species or civilization..

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kasper Hauser

Interesting. Do you think all civilisations destroy themselves or are destroyed by natural events before they have a chance to make the leap to super advanced so as to save themselves? Not sure myself, given the scientific and technological advances we have made in only 100 years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Hmm.. colour me sceptical. This is more computer modelling. Not actual science. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
19 hours ago, zep73 said:

Yeah, "probably" is a big word to use about something that only has statistical evidence.

Statistical evidence?  You're being very generous!  I'd call it guesswork, and not particularly educated so.  

Why are the authors allowed to call this a 'study'?  What exactly have they studied?  What have they measured?

An extract from  livescience.com:

Modeling the evolution of the Milky Way over time ... they found that the probability of life emerging ... peaked about 13,000 light-years from the galactic center and 8 billion years after the galaxy formed. Earth, by comparison, is about 25,000 light-years from the galactic center, and human civilization arose on the planet's surface about 13.5 billion years after the Milky Way formed.

The only known piece of data completely contradicts their modelling.  So what's the value of their work?  This isn't science: it's just pointless nonsense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nnicolette
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. colour me sceptical. This is more computer modelling. Not actual science. 

Right! I feel like most of these articles should be more aptly named "some old guy's speculation of the day". So who's to say that intelligent enough civilizations don't spread out to various planets, or overcome extinction scenarios and live longer than the dinosaurs did? I too like to smoke a blunt and write about my pessimistic ideas of the galaxy, old man scientist. How can I get paid for that too?

 

I once heard that the Hopi believed that humans came here and that there had been a total of 187,000 some odd (i dont remember the exact number but it was specific and not as round)  planets seeded with humans. If that were the case, even worldwide extinction would hardly be the end of us. Is my source accurate? Odds are low, but it still has as much basis as anything this guy made up :tsu:

 

And wait a minute... Did they just claim that most life would exist 13000 light years from the center of the milky way and then approximate us at 25000 lightyears away? :huh: what is your basis old man?

Edited by Nnicolette
Addition
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
childofindigo

Seems most civilizations believe they were hust dropped here from somewhere else? Seeing our history is so hard

to extract and that we appeared a few million years back make me tend towards that idea that humans may be everywhere in this

Galaxy gradually spreading out further and further, most forgetting their origins and thinking the same as we do that we are alone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog
24 minutes ago, Nobu said:

That is my guess. Space is really really big. I think our species will die out before we can cross it as well.

A the rate we are turning dumber, we don't have a lot of a chance...

Edited by Jon the frog
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma

<a new study> ??? What the fek does that mean??? Studying what?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
2 minutes ago, Jon the frog said:

A the rate we are turning dumber, we don't have a lot of a chance...

speak for yourself mate!

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
astrobeing
7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. colour me sceptical. This is more computer modelling. Not actual science. 

I agree. From the article: "The study has effectively produced what could be considered to be an updated version of the famous Drake equation..."

In other words they selected values that gave them the results they desired.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

Sounds about right to me.

Humans are a cancer to the host that is keeping us alive. We act exactly like a cancer. We destroy ourselves, and our host. Just for our own selfish, entitled gain. With no care at all that we will eventually be killing off our colony. And than it just starts again on someone else.

Makes total sense to me. It really does.

We are the mold on the bread.

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog

social networks, belief systems and fast access to info are making U-mans dumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
4 hours ago, Sakari said:

Sounds about right to me.

Humans are a cancer to the host that is keeping us alive. We act exactly like a cancer. We destroy ourselves, and our host. Just for our own selfish, entitled gain. With no care at all that we will eventually be killing off our colony. And than it just starts again on someone else.

Makes total sense to me. It really does.

We are the mold on the bread.

Ok so you're not a fan of humans or humanity, we get it. Cancer is horrible and very effective at killing its host. Lord knows I've watched my parents and a brother die from it. Humans are irresponsible in some aspects for sure. If humans were as effective and thorough as cancer the planet would have been dead long ago. To liken us to cancer is a bit much.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.