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 -

We can find alien life within 25 years, claims astrophysicist


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

To keep saying you're not wrong simply won't change that misconceptions are misconceptions.

 

I gave you the evidence and you just keep on dancing around it and calling out "misconceptions".  I mean, isn't this someone being obtuse?

12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Remember you are the one that felt the need to announce that the opinion of some anonymous guy means nothing to you.  This is understood by every reasonable person.  I hope your utterance served its purpose of easing your insecurity. 

 

Every utterance of mine serves it's purpose otherwise I wouldn't utter it.

18 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You're insistence on discussing personality and rubber-glue antics is meaningless and adds nothing to the discussion of possibilities versus probabilities. 

You just need to accept the concept you and others in this forum are the ones that debunk any intelligent discussion towards possibilities that may exist in this universe.  All you do is debunk and bring out the 'evidence' card even when people are just proposing theoretical possibilities, above all, based on theoretical science announcements (like in this case).  Quite disgusting if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

I gave you the evidence and you just keep on dancing around it and calling out "misconceptions".  I mean, isn't this someone being obtuse?

Every utterance of mine serves it's purpose otherwise I wouldn't utter it.

You just need to accept the concept you and others in this forum are the ones that debunk any intelligent discussion towards possibilities that may exist in this universe.  All you do is debunk and bring out the 'evidence' card even when people are just proposing theoretical possibilities, above all, based on theoretical science announcements (like in this case).  Quite disgusting if you ask me.

You erroneously said this was picking sides.

13 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

"In fact it's even possible that it's more likely that there would be no life anywhere in the universe and our Earth beat tremendous odds."

Is this statement true or false?

Now look at the statement's negation.  Is it true or false?

"In fact it's [...] impossible that it's more likely that there would be no life anywhere in the universe and our Earth beat tremendous odds."

The statements AB was querying were statements asserting probability not possibility.  The difference is clear to reasonable people.

No one has denied possibility. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, joc said:

I think @astrobeing is just arguing the fact of statistics being applied without adequate information.  His  point seems to be that without having found any life anywhere, we don't have the necessary information to plug into an equation that demands exact information.  Accordingly, I think that it is a bit absurd for an astrophysicist to make a claim that we will find ET in any kind of time frame work.  What is the astrophysicist basing his thinking on.  Nothing?  Exactly.  Because we don't really have any data to suggest that ET exists at all anywhere since we haven't found any.

I think most of this thread has been a case of:

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

 

 

The twenty five year estimate was based on the type of technology they understand will be sent into space.  It's a bit of a stab in the dark estimate but that's not my main issue.  The issue is someone here suggesting there are no statistics to suggest there currently is life in the universe (and nobody is debating this point) while almost proposing it's more likely there is none because of 'tremendous odds' it happened on earth.

Think about it? We are the proof there is life in the universe, which comprises billions or trillions of galaxies and trillions and quadrillions of planets, yet, according to these professional debunkers, we are the exception amongst trillions because our 21st century scientists, 0.1 type civilisation haven't still found evidence.

If I was a betting man I would go with the one evidence together with another quadrillion possibilities against the sole tremendously odd proposal.  How about you?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

 

You erroneously said this was picking sides.

Is this statement true or false?

Now look at the statement's negation.  Is it true or false?

"In fact it's [...] impossible that it's more likely that there would be no life anywhere in the universe and our Earth beat tremendous odds."

The statements AB was querying were statements asserting probability not possibility.  The difference is clear to reasonable people.

No one has denied possibility. 

 

Mate, you've just bored me with your constant and fruitless attempts to win some little battles based on superflous rationale, while never really discussing the crux of what the real issue being discussed is.  I suggest you read my reply, agreeable or not, to Joc.

Bye, bye.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Mate, you've just bored me with your constant and fruitless attempts to win some little battles based on superflous rationale, while never really discussing the crux of what the real issue being discussed is.  I suggest you read my reply, agreeable or not, to Joc.

Bye, bye.

 

Awww, I thought you said I was entertaining.  How fickle.

Anyway you can run from a simple question.  No one can make you answer anything you don't want to.

It's both possible that life exists elsewhere.  It is also possible that were are the only planet with life.  We do not have data to answer one way or the other.  We do not have data to suggest a meaningful probability.

It is possible to not pick a side.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

The issue is someone here suggesting there are no statistics to suggest there currently is life in the universe (and nobody is debating this point) while almost proposing it's more likely there is none because of 'tremendous odds' it happened on earth.

No one, certainly not me, ever said it was "more likely". If you learn about the history of the Earth, you will learn about those astonishingly tremendous odds and it will make you appreciate our planet much more than you do right now.

2 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Think about it? We are the proof there is life in the universe, which comprises billions or trillions of galaxies and trillions and quadrillions of planets, yet, according to these professional debunkers, we are the exception amongst trillions because our 21st century scientists, 0.1 type civilisation haven't still found evidence.

Yes, we may very well be the exception and yes, a universe with absolutely no life anywhere in it was a possibility. It still could be after the Sun destroys Earth.

BTW, I'm not a "professional debunker" on this topic but for several years in my career I was paid to evaluate studies and present them to management using simple words so they wouldn't make stupid decisions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

Yes, we may very well be the exception and yes, a universe with absolutely no life anywhere in it was a possibility. It still could be after the Sun destroys Earth.

I am not talking about religion when I ask this, if your supposition is correct then what is the point?  Why would there be a vast universe with life as we know it (AS WE KNOW It, which is very limited, rudimentary knowledge) only on one tiny planet in a solar system at the edge of the galaxy.   Even in our galaxy, not the whole universe, it makes no sense that we are so special to be the only life (or if you must, the only sentient life - which we aren't even on this planet).   What a narrow minded assumption, or is it a hope and the fear that you are wrong that makes you push this point and argue with people about it?

The biggest problem with this subject that I see is that we know so little and think we understand more than we do that we put our hopes and fears into our theories instead of accepting that we don't know anything.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

so they wouldn't make stupid decisions.

And? Did it work out the way you hoped?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I am not talking about religion when I ask this, if your supposition is correct then what is the point?  Why would there be a vast universe with life as we know it (AS WE KNOW It, which is very limited, rudimentary knowledge) only on one tiny planet in a solar system at the edge of the galaxy.

Because things like that happen all the time.

Why do you care how big Earth is? Do you feel it should be bigger? Why do you care about its location in the galaxy? Do you believe there's a better location in the galaxy for life to appear? It sounds like you're making false assumptions about where life should be in the universe.

40 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Even in our galaxy, not the whole universe, it makes no sense that we are so special to be the only life (or if you must, the only sentient life - which we aren't even on this planet). 

So when someone wins the lottery, you think they're "special" in some way?

Every planet in the solar system is "special" in some way. If you learn about the history of Earth, you'll find out that this planet had a long series of incredibly fortunate events that led to the possibility (and only the possibility) of life forming on it. If you know statistics then you know that the total probability of a series of events is the product of all the probabilities of every event and this quickly turns into a number with many many digits. This number can be much larger than the estimated number of planets in the galaxy.

45 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

What a narrow minded assumption, or is it a hope and the fear that you are wrong that makes you push this point and argue with people about it?

It's not an assumption. I'm using the information of what we know about how life appeared on Earth. I'm sorry if this upsets you.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

Because things like that happen all the time.

Why do you care how big Earth is? Do you feel it should be bigger? Why do you care about its location in the galaxy? Do you believe there's a better location in the galaxy for life to appear? It sounds like you're making false assumptions about where life should be in the universe.

So when someone wins the lottery, you think they're "special" in some way?

Every planet in the solar system is "special" in some way. If you learn about the history of Earth, you'll find out that this planet had a long series of incredibly fortunate events that led to the possibility (and only the possibility) of life forming on it. If you know statistics then you know that the total probability of a series of events is the product of all the probabilities of every event and this quickly turns into a number with many many digits. This number can be much larger than the estimated number of planets in the galaxy.

It's not an assumption. I'm using the information of what we know about how life appeared on Earth. I'm sorry if this upsets you.

You really try hard to twist things and think that makes others seem foolish, when your obvious twists and purposeful "misunderstandings" make you look foolish.   What are you really afraid of?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Desertrat56 said:

You really try hard to twist things and think that makes others seem foolish, when your obvious twists and purposeful "misunderstandings" make you look foolish.  

You asked questions and I answered them. If you think that I "twist things" then I can only assume it's because you don't understand my responses.

That must be why....

1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

 What are you really afraid of?

... you're trying to change the subject!  :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

"AB" has repeatedly made reference to the series of unlikely events that led to life developing right here.

And how 'unlikely' are those events, really?

Can AB show us some of his favorite statistics (based on earth only) to prove his point?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Abramelin said:

And how 'unlikely' are those events, really?

Can AB show us some of his favorite statistics (based on earth only) to prove his point?

You know what? I don't think he can, because that's exactly what he said - he can't.

So we took about a third of age of the universe to develop.  Our planet while to develop too.  Intuitively that resembles a geometric distribution with a low probability; but, I can't even define what a trial is let alone derive a probability. So, I must admit I'm guessing.

We do know when that when things truly occur at random we tend observe clusters rather things being evenly spaced.  We haven't found anything local to us yet.

Weren't you discussing, with AB, the chemical reactions on a newly formed Earth and the seemingly spontaneous development needed to produce an atmosphere able to support life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Awww, I thought you said I was entertaining.  How fickle.

Anyway you can run from a simple question.  No one can make you answer anything you don't want to.

 

You were entertaining but then your obtuseness started boring me. 

Run from your psychoanalysis test question?  LOL, that was on record the weirdest example I've ever come across.

9 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

It's both possible that life exists elsewhere.  It is also possible that were are the only planet with life.  We do not have data to answer one way or the other.  We do not have data to suggest a meaningful probability.

It is possible to not pick a side.

Wow, logic!  You must have taken your medicines between one post and the other. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, astrobeing said:

No one, certainly not me, ever said it was "more likely". If you learn about the history of the Earth, you will learn about those astonishingly tremendous odds and it will make you appreciate our planet much more than you do right now.

 

Yes you did, more than once, sometimes subtily, but mainly bolstering your agenda.  Here's an example:

What do you know how the conditions in the rest of the universe are based on our sketchy studies on 9 planets?  I mean, that's like a person walking into an asylum in a given city and saying the world is inhabited only by loonies.

7 hours ago, astrobeing said:

Yes, we may very well be the exception and yes, a universe with absolutely no life anywhere in it was a possibility. It still could be after the Sun destroys Earth.

BTW, I'm not a "professional debunker" on this topic but for several years in my career I was paid to evaluate studies and present them to management using simple words so they wouldn't make stupid decisions.

Without certainly no evidence I'll throw my coins towards the zillion chances there is a possibility there is life.  If that's OK with you.

BTW, talking serious stuff, are you from Australia, from Queensland?  Obviously you can tell me to buzz off, but it seems to me anytime anyone says something about your posts, Golden Duck seems to interject and has you covered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

You were entertaining but then your obtuseness started boring me. 

Run from your psychoanalysis test question?  LOL, that was on record the weirdest example I've ever come across.

Wow, logic!  You must have taken your medicines between one post and the other. :P

Spell out you your grievance with the statements or just simply say whether they are true or false.

You've got nothing but lies and an obsession with abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

The twenty five year estimate was based on the type of technology they understand will be sent into space.  It's a bit of a stab in the dark estimate but that's not my main issue.  The issue is someone here suggesting there are no statistics to suggest there currently is life in the universe (and nobody is debating this point) while almost proposing it's more likely there is none because of 'tremendous odds' it happened on earth.

Think about it? We are the proof there is life in the universe, which comprises billions or trillions of galaxies and trillions and quadrillions of planets, yet, according to these professional debunkers, we are the exception amongst trillions because our 21st century scientists, 0.1 type civilisation haven't still found evidence.

If I was a betting man I would go with the one evidence together with another quadrillion possibilities against the sole tremendously odd proposal.  How about you?

 

i just concur with what  @Piney said...

Quote

Rare Earth Hypothesis. I'm in agreement with it when It comes to technological life. 

So let me just give you what the Rare Earth Hypothesis actually is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the origin of life and the evolution of biological complexity such as sexually reproducing, multicellular organisms on Earth (and, subsequently, human intelligence) required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances.

According to the hypothesis, complex extraterrestrial life is an improbable phenomenon and likely to be rare throughout the universe as a whole. The term "Rare Earth" originates from Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (2000), a book by Peter Ward, a geologist and paleontologist, and Donald E. Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist, both faculty members at the University of Washington.

Now, I don't know if Piney read the book ( I of course haven't, but I might now)...but I give credence to anything Piney says...because...he knows stuff...

but if you take into consideration the many, many things that had to happen for us to exist on Earth...including, and especially, the Asteroid death of the dinosaurs, as I have posted previously, the odds very well may be trillions to one that a planet with intelligent life exists anywhere in the universe.

Again, it isn't the number of galaxies existing in the universe...it is the odds that all of this could have come together in any one of them.  Without the Asteroid Destruction of the Dinosaurs we would most probably be a Lizard Planet at best.

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From just a couple of weeks ago.  (19 September)

Quote

Prof Brian Cox Isn't Convinced There Are Other Life-Forms In The Universe

Earth could be 'the only place' in the universe with life forms intelligent enough to form civilisation, Professor Brian Cox has said. While microbial life forms could well be common, the physicist believes that 'things like us may be extremely rare'.

...

'If you forced me to guess, I would say there may be microbes all over the place, that’s why we’re looking for life on Mars, for example, but in terms of intelligence, one thing to think about, the origin of life on Earth, it looks like we have good evidence life was present 3.8 billion years ago and the first civilisation to appear on Earth was about now, give or take.

'So it took the best part of four billion years to go from the origin of life on Earth to a civilisation. That’s a third of the age of the age of the universe, and that is a long time, so that may indicate that microbes may be common, but things like us may be extremely rare.'

...

'But one of the things it’s very useful at is giving us a perspective, which is a wider perspective and actually I don’t think many of us think, many of our political leaders maybe don’t really think, in terms of is it possible that this is the only, let’s say, the only island of meaning in a galaxy of 400 billion suns. That matters.

https://geekireland.com/prof-brian-cox-isnt-convinced-there-are-other-life-forms-in-the-universe/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, joc said:

i just concur with what  @Piney said...

So let me just give you what the Rare Earth Hypothesis actually is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the origin of life and the evolution of biological complexity such as sexually reproducing, multicellular organisms on Earth (and, subsequently, human intelligence) required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances.

According to the hypothesis, complex extraterrestrial life is an improbable phenomenon and likely to be rare throughout the universe as a whole. The term "Rare Earth" originates from Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (2000), a book by Peter Ward, a geologist and paleontologist, and Donald E. Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist, both faculty members at the University of Washington.

Now, I don't know if Piney read the book ( I of course haven't, but I might now)...but I give credence to anything Piney says...because...he knows stuff...

but if you take into consideration the many, many things that had to happen for us to exist on Earth...including, and especially, the Asteroid death of the dinosaurs, as I have posted previously, the odds very well may be trillions to one that a planet with intelligent life exists anywhere in the universe.

Again, it isn't the number of galaxies existing in the universe...it is the odds that all of this could have come together in any one of them.  Without the Asteroid Destruction of the Dinosaurs we would most probably be a Lizard Planet at best.

 

I never read the book. My oldest sister, who's a biologist with a geology background introduced me to the theory.

......and I know some stuff. :unsure2:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Piney said:

I never read the book. My oldest sister, who's a biologist with a geology background introduced me to the theory.

......and I know some stuff. :unsure2:

 I had never heard of it until you mentioned it.  So, we might not learn something new everyday...but that was definitely something new worth learning!:tu:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, joc said:

 I had never heard of it until you mentioned it.  So, we might not learn something new everyday...but that was definitely something new worth learning!:tu:

I already knew the humanoid body structure was created with the help of a giant moon but our arms are at our sides and we can put them above our heads because we were arboreal to escape big kitties.

Then when drought took the trees we needed to run and run fast so our legs and hips evolved to walk upright.......to avoid big kitties....

....shame our spines never caught up though......:o

Anyhoo.....the chances of that happening again are slim to none. A bipedal body structure would lean more towards a tyrannosaurus or kangaroo shape with a big tail as a counterbalance if we were always ground dwellers because of the "path of least resistance" thingy in evolution and you would still need a binary planetary system or giant moon.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Piney said:

Anyhoo.....the chances of that happening again are slim to none.

On a cosmic scale, slim to none is relative. Throw in the vast amount of time as well, then other intelligences become very much a possibility and I'm not even factoring in the multiverse. It always amuses me. Humans so desperately want to think they're something special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

On a cosmic scale, slim to none is relative. Throw in the vast amount of time as well, then other intelligences become very much a possibility and I'm not even factoring in the multiverse. It always amuses me. Humans so desperately want to think they're something special.

Were not, but were still in a first generation quiet galaxy on a first generation rocky planet with metals, O2 and water spinning around a unusually quiet yellow star so we're probably advanced life that's been around longer than most. Counting our evolutionary ancestors of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Piney said:

Were not, but were still in a first generation quiet galaxy on a first generation rocky planet with metals, O2 and water spinning around a unusually quiet yellow star so we're probably advanced life that's been around longer than most. Counting our evolutionary ancestors of course.

In a universe of billions of galaxies I'm certain we're far from unique, as far as being an intelligent lifeform, at least. You should read Chinese author Cixin Liu's Three Body Problem trilogy. It's a disturbing even terrifying take on solving the Fermi Paradox. Think of the galaxy as a dark forest, where silence is the best defense against predation.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.