Rodders Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 I think there must be. But they're porbably in different stages of evolution. Perhaps there were civilisations which have come and gone, and also those which are still in the bacteria form. Maybe their life is so radically different their modes of communication are unrecognisable to us. So much hypothesis and conjecture out there. Fascinating though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahamaad Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Yes but we have 'only' got as far Mars. Thats like dismissing it because 1 try in a trillion didn't find anything. Not true - they have a probe that is in the process of leaving our solar system and travlled in close proximity to Uranus and Pluto (which is no longer a planet incidentally). Ok, on the basis of the assumption that there are billions of stars/solar systems like ours capable of sustaining life - presumably at different stages of 'civilastion', why has no contact been made by them? Not a single radio signal. No visits in stellar space craft. Only anecdotal rumours about crashes in 'Area 51' kept under close tabs by the US government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Blandy, I'm pretty sure I've done worse.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahamaad Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 I think there must be. But they're porbably in different stages of evolution Thats two asumptions you have based on not a single shred of evidence. There is absolutely no proof that extra-terrestial life exists, yet people think 'there must be' - I don't get it, what are you basing this assumption on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Dogg Posted December 18, 2007 Author Share Posted December 18, 2007 Yes but we have 'only' got as far Mars. Thats like dismissing it because 1 try in a trillion didn't find anything. Not true - they have a probe that is in the process of leaving our solar system and travlled in close proximity to Uranus and Pluto (which is no longer a planet incidentally). Ok, on the basis of the assumption that there are billions of stars/solar systems like ours capable of sustaining life - presumably at different stages of 'civilastion', why has no contact been made by them? Not a single radio signal. No visits in stellar space craft. Only anecdotal rumours about crashes in 'Area 51' kept under close tabs by the US government. Our solar system is a blip in the universe. Uranus and pluto are very inhospitable. Life would 'probably' only survive on an earth life planet. And you ask why there is no stellar space craft? Maybe they're like us and don't have such things. You need to travel at phenomenal (impossible?) speed to get anywhere even beyond our solar system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 My argument agaist extra-terrestial life is there has been not one single shred of evidence to suggest that there is intelligent life out there My argument against god is there has been not one single shred of evidence to suggest that there is omnipotent entities out there... oh wait, that's another thread But what is outside it? And if you tell me its 'nothing' then what exactly is that nothing? :? I have a headache just thinking about it! Exactly. Anything that is finite has a beginning and an end, at either side of these there has to exist SOMETHING. Just as when you blow up a balloon it expands into the room, surely there has to be something for the universe to expand into? We'd never beable to enter it though, afterall we're inside the universe balloon and the balloon would just stretch as we tried to push out of it. I guess what it comes down to is that as finite beings we don't truely understand concepts dealing with infinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahamaad Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 And you ask why there is no stellar space craft? Maybe they're like us and don't have such things. You need to travel at phenomenal (impossible?) speed to get anywhere even beyond our solar system. I am using the assumption that some people have used by saying given there are billions of stars/solar systems by probability there are a fair few similar to our own with a planet similar to our own, at the right distance from their 'sun' composed of the right materials to sustain life, and also be of a gravitational pull able to sustain an atmopshere and hence life. If there are indeed thousands of these - which you now use the laws of probablity to base this assumption on, you would also think that these life sustaining environments are at different stages of development. Given the age of the universe, some might have been extinct, some less advanced than us, and some more advanced. The other assumption is they believe like us, that there is life out there, and have attempted to make contact - yet there is no sig of this contact. In fact, correct me if I am wrong, I don't think atronomers have found a planet like earth in the universe yet - at the right position to be able to sustain life. What is unique about Earth is not only it's position from the sun, but it's size (and hence its gravitational pull) and its composition. While it is not unfeasible that similar planets could exist, I think it is highly improbable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Thats two asumptions you have based on not a single shred of evidence. There is absolutely no proof that extra-terrestial life exists, yet people think 'there must be' - I don't get it, what are you basing this assumption on? A theory of probability. The equation has been done and threw up a rather large number of planets capable of supporting life. Admittedly the equation makes some assumptions, i.e. the number of planets orbiting stars, a re-jigging of the figures can result in a very different outcome, but even the most conservative estimates point towards life being highly probable. Studies on our own planet have also shown that life is very hardy and able to develop and survive in the most hostile of conditions. Edit - I don't think you need find a twin of earth to find life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahamaad Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 We'd never beable to enter it though, afterall we're inside the universe balloon and the balloon would just stretch as we tried to push out of it. I guess what it comes down to is that as finite beings we don't truely understand concepts dealing with infinity. What I can't get my head roun, is the 'finite nature of the Universe'. So it has a beginning and an end? What shape is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 We'd never beable to enter it though, afterall we're inside the universe balloon and the balloon would just stretch as we tried to push out of it. I guess what it comes down to is that as finite beings we don't truely understand concepts dealing with infinity. What I can't get my head roun, is the 'finite nature of the Universe'. So it has a beginning and an end? What shape is it?That one's easy, it's spherical. It originated from one point, and is constantly expanding outwards from that point in all directions, so it's gotta be spherical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarjei Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Interesting read on the Fermi paradox Simon. My argument agaist extra-terrestial life is there has been not one single shred of evidence to suggest that there is intelligent life out there. I don't think they have even discovered bacterial type life anywhere outside the our planet. Of course there are astronomers and scientists who think there are certain planets/solar systems that could possibly have conditions that sustain life but this has never been proven. Conspiracy theorists will argue that world governments, and especially the US government have kept such things under wraps (area 51 and the like) but despite that you would hav thought there was something, even a radio signal from another planet to suggest there is life out there. So I am in the 'don't know' group but with a tendency towards the 'no' Those arguments are not really valid if you think about it. The first argument, that there has been no evidence of life elsewhere can't be seen as an indication, because frankly, the amount of places we've looked is so small in comparison to how many planets potentially excist. So far very few planets and some moons can be confirmed to not support life. In total I think the amount of confirmed planets discovered outside our solar system is something like 300 and aside from looking at their orbit and vaguely determining their composition, we have no clue whatsoever if they can support life. Consider this: "Outer space, as it was aptly put by the late Douglas Adams, is vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big. Astronomy's most up-to-date observations and calculations number the stars in the visible universe at somewhere around seventy sextillion (7 x 1022), an incomprehensible value which is seldom welcome in polite company. This figure is so formidable that any attempt to scale it for human consumption results in such impotent analogies as "ten times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts;" or, "ten trillion stars for every man, woman, and child on Earth." The 2nd argument about not picking up radio signals does not prove anything either, because if there were radio signals being sent out there, we would most likely not pick them up anyway: ... All these factors aside, there is one additional daunting obstacle which complicates any effort to tune in to intergalactic radio. Even if the universe is thick with signal-slinging civilizations, including some old enough that their indiscriminate electromagnetism has had sufficient time to reach Earth, not even the most massive and sensitive equipment of science is currently capable of plucking the signal from the static. When any non-focused electromagnetic signal is generated– such as a television broadcast or a cell phone conversation– the energy propagates as a spherical wavefront at the speed of light. When a sphere is doubled in diameter, its surface area increases by a factor of four; but in a spherical wave the "surface area" is the energy itself. This means the signal's energy is spread over four times more area at twice the distance, resulting in a 75% loss in intensity. To put it another way, in order for a broadcasting tower to double its effective range for a given receiver, it must quadruple its transmitting power. To demonstrate the degrading effect of distance on an everyday omnidirectional signal, one might imagine a spacecraft equipped with an Arecibo-style radio receiver directed towards the Earth. If this hypothetical spacecraft were to set out for the interstellar medium, its massive 305-meter wide dish would lose its tenuous grip on AM radio before reaching Mars. Somewhere en route to Jupiter, the UHF television receivers would spew nothing but static. Before passing Saturn, the last of the FM radio stations would fade away, leaving all of Earth's electromagnetic chatter behind well before leaving our own solar system. If a range-finding radar beam from Earth happened to intersect the ship's path, it would be observable from a much greater distance; though its short duration and smooth, Gaussian meaninglessness would make it an inconclusive detection– much like the Wow! signal and Radio Source SHGb02+14a. A highly focused beam such as that used to communicate with space probes would also remain detectable for some distance beyond the edge of the solar system ... Read the whole article here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahamaad Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Read the whole article here. Thats a good read. However, my argument, based on an assumption of course, is that if there are other civilastions out there, there are some that are at a more advanced stage than us scientifically ( there may be some that are at a less advanced stage). If that is the case, and they have mastered space travel, why have we not had any contact from them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahamaad Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Of course some people think the governments know about this already... Although I must admit, given the incompetence of the UK government such informarion would have been leaked into the public domain long ago. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Read the whole article here. Thats a good read. However, my argument, based on an assumption of course, is that if there are other civilastions out there, there are some that are at a more advanced stage than us scientifically ( there may be some that are at a less advanced stage). If that is the case, and they have mastered space travel, why have we not had any contact from them? Why would they come here if they don't know we're here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSufferingVilla Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Yes universe is vast life is tough. Though the closest ET's to Earth probably look more like a sponge than Spock and have a brain capacity equal to the average Bluenose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virginia_Villain Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 We've also only been capable of detecting radio signals for a very short period of time. I'm in the camp that there has to be other life out there if only because of the sheer numbers of stars and planets and that life on Earth has withstood very hostile conditions during great freezes, meteors, volcanic activity, etc. The lack of visitation from outside life could again be a function of the very short amount of time humans have been on the planet or some type of evidence that interstellar travel is not possible for things with a finite lifespan. I now fully await more knowledgeable people to shoot this full of holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 I think there must be. But they're porbably in different stages of evolution Thats two asumptions you have based on not a single shred of evidence. There is absolutely no proof that extra-terrestial life exists, yet people think 'there must be' - I don't get it, what are you basing this assumption on? I clicked 'don't know' on the poll, then phrased my response quite badly Just what I think, based on how own planet has evolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted December 18, 2007 Administrator Share Posted December 18, 2007 We'd never beable to enter it though, afterall we're inside the universe balloon and the balloon would just stretch as we tried to push out of it. I guess what it comes down to is that as finite beings we don't truely understand concepts dealing with infinity. What I can't get my head roun, is the 'finite nature of the Universe'. So it has a beginning and an end? What shape is it? Die Unbegrenztheit des Raumes besitzt...eine gröszere empirische Gewiszheit als irgend eine äuszere Erfahrung. Hieraus folgt aber die Unendlichkeit keineswegs... [space has no boundary - that is empirically more certain than any external observation. However, that does not imply that space is infinite...] and the shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarjei Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Read the whole article here. Thats a good read. However, my argument, based on an assumption of course, is that if there are other civilastions out there, there are some that are at a more advanced stage than us scientifically ( there may be some that are at a less advanced stage). If that is the case, and they have mastered space travel, why have we not had any contact from them? Why would they come here if they don't know we're here? That's a good point as well. Aside from our sun orbital variation due to the gravitational pull from the surrounding planets, there is no indication for someone far away that there are planets close to our sun, much less that life exist on one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted December 18, 2007 Moderator Share Posted December 18, 2007 In fact, correct me if I am wrong, I don't think atronomers have found a planet like earth in the universe yet - at the right position to be able to sustain life. What is unique about Earth is not only it's position from the sun, but it's size (and hence its gravitational pull) and its composition. While it is not unfeasible that similar planets could exist, I think it is highly improbable Why does other life have to have the same living conditions as us? Surely life will adapt to it's own surroundings wherever it has turned up. Why can't those creatures have a 'skin' more tolerant of higher temperatures, and be able to 'use' (i.e. breath or ingest) their own atmosphere where we might not be able to, and not to mention have their own equivalent of a muscle structure developed based on the gravity on their planet. If you are looking for other humans then fine, we haven't found the right atmosphere yet, but I think it's far more close-minded to assume that every living thing in the universe has to live by our rules and parameters. In fact I'd say it's silly to assume so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts