Discovery Of Alien Inhabited Worlds

[Almighty Colin]

Do you believe that there are life forms anywhere else in the universe outside of Earth?

Do you believe that there are technology-wielding lfie forms anywhere in the universe outside of Earth?

What do you believe and why?

[Torone]

I believe that it would be the highest order of arrogance to assume that we are the only life forms in the universe; or that we are the only ones capable of using technology.

[Almighty Colin]

Torone,

Do you assume the opposite?

[Almighty Colin]

Note to self. Aliens are going out of style.



Last edited by Colin at Nov 19 2002, 05:55 PM

[Edd]

I think you've have to be crazy or strangely self-abosorbed to think that we are the only form of intelligence in the universe. There's bound to be someone or something else out there more evolved than us. And they are doing their best to avoid us at all costs. Occassionally one will drop in and abduct Ulfie or Billy...

[Nickatilynx]

Do you believe that there are life forms anywhere else in the universe outside of Earth?

It is a given....the universe is infinite which of course on prbabilty....


(hic)

[Edd]

oh for crissakes would somebody take the keyboard away from the Pikey! Anthony you KNOW he's not supposed to post when he's tanked... He's only supposed to SIGN CHECKS!!!

[Nickatilynx]

Anthony is big.

But not big enough to take a keyboard from a drunken pikey!! (hic)

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by Torone@Nov 19 2002, 09:48 AM
I believe that it would be the highest order of arrogance to assume that we are the only life forms in the universe; or that we are the only ones capable of using technology.

THUNK!!

HOLY SHIT TORONE AND I AGREE!!!

[Torone]

" Torone,

Do you assume the opposite? "

Nope! I DO, however keep an open mind on the subject, because there are too many unexplainables... h34r:

[ulfie]

Originally posted by Edd@Nov 19 2002, 05:59 PM
I think you've have to be crazy or strangely self-abosorbed to think that we are the only form of intelligence in the universe. There's bound to be someone or something else out there more evolved than us. And they are doing their best to avoid us at all costs. Occassionally one will drop in and abduct Ulfie or Billy...

I've never been abducted, they just taunt me from their invisible gliders. I think they work for the government but as long as I keep my tinfoil hat on they can't read my thoughts.

[Almighty Colin]

I really don't have a clue. I would guess:

1) There is life out there
2) I think there is at least a reasonable chance there is NO other technology using life in the Universe.
3) I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were no life anywhere.

I'll tackle 2 first. Even when life does arise, the chances of it developing advanced technology must be exceedingly small. Consider that of billions of species that have come and gone and come and gone on this planet - only one has ever developed technology. And out of the about 5 billion years this planet has been here, it took about 4.99995 years for technology to appear. So something like 99.9995% of the time earth has been here, there has been no technology whatsoever. Dinosaurs ruled and roamed the Earth for tens of millions of years and never developed technology. Never needed to. They owned the planetary niche "large land animal" with no need for technology at all. We have a test case. The result was that it takes billions of years and billions of species for technology to appear and even then there was never any guarantee that it would appear. In fact, if it weren't for the extinction of the dinosaurs, probably due to cosmic chance and coincidence, we wouldn't be here. Take that asteroid smashing into the earth away and technology never develops on Earth. Big brains, hands, and bipedalism are not a necessary development in order to sit at the top of the food chain, to occupy an ecological niche - as proven by the dinos.

So even if there were millions of inhabited planets, I don't think it is necessarily true that technology wielding life would appear or has appeared.

1. I don't really need to say much about because it is the standard scientific philosophy and believed by most everyone. The universe is huge and even any small chance of their being life, even absurdly small, will lead to life all over the universe.

I only half-subscribe to that because if you were on the only planet in the universe with life, you wouldn't be able to tell either way. How would you know?

An example -

An Iraqi soldier is in a trench and an American bomb goes over his head and destroys a paper cup maufacturing plant. A strong wind blows and in a few days, millions of cups dot the Iraqi desert. 9 little cups land in his trench, one nearby. He notices that the one closest to him has an american $10 bill. He is shocked .. and happy! American money! How did this cup get $10 in it? Is this normal? Is it not? He doesn't know. It takes him quite an effort but he makes his way through the rest of the trench and collects the other cups. No more dollars. 9 cups checked. Then he looks at all the millions of cups in the desert and wonders whether there are American dollars in them. He wonders what the odds are that cups have american dollars in them but but knowing why or how a $10 bill appeared in the first one , he does not have enough information to make a guess.

That to me is the case of life in the Universe. How does one know from one example whether that is the normal case, a rare case, or a unique case? One case is no pattern whatsoever.



Last edited by Colin at Nov 19 2002, 06:30 PM

First, a little update. Scientists have finally modeled what they call a 'second big bang' which happened a few hundred million years after the first. These massive clouds of hydrogen gas formed all over the newly created universe and gradually gained mass and strength until they blew up, birthing the universe and its multi-element stars and planets. It all began with these massive clouds of hydrogen, and if they hadn't blown up, well nothing would have happened.

Getting now to habitable planets. It is estimated that the Earth was hit with half a dozen or more massive space collisions during its 5 billion year history (making it all the more impressive that we've maintained a near perfect circle around the sun) wiping out chances for life to evolve gradually. Microbes did survive though, by burrowing underneath the Earth's crust and using the mantle's heat to stay warm. So they resurfaced after the nuclear winter and got back to reproducing.

There is a 20 million mile range approximately which is a friendly zone for habitable planets. Meaning it is just the right distance from its respective star to support life climate-wise (again, assuming that our climate is the 'ideal' one for intelligent life.) Earth, for example, is 93 million miles from the sun at pretty much all times. The zone if I remember correctly is around 76 million to 95 million miles.

Secondary, but equally important, is planet size. We have located many planets in similar safe zones in other galaxies, but the only planets we are currently capable of actually seeing are massive gas giants closer in size to Jupiter than Earth. These planets tend to either lack the ability to hold an atmosphere, or are so mineral weak that habitation would be difficult. Or they're massive tumultuous balls of gas.

We are developing technology to be able to filter out the glare of distant suns and locate smaller planets; currently we can detect their presence by studying space around them, but we can't actually see them due to their small size.

Calculate the number of galaxies out there, even within our general vicinity. Then take the number of habitable systems, and planets that fall within the oribtal safe zones of their stars. With the proper amount of gravity and minerals (to hold atmosphere in, and keep deadly UV rays out) it is almost a certainty that other planets in the universe do harbor life.

Depending on their galactic history (i.e. did they get socked with tons of huge meteors in their early years) it is also reasonable to assume that on some of these planets evolution was allowed to progress without much interruption. This would put them on a more advanced track than human beings.

Again at a certain point it becomes philosophical, asking questions like what IS technology to other races, for all we know it could be advances in agronomy, and they could have little to no interest in planetary exploration. When dealing with alien cultures it is impossible to predict where evolution and societal influences will take them. Most of our major leaps in astronomy have come within mere decades; so there is no real argument for or against other cultures having superbly advanced interstellar technology, or being mired in feudalism for hundreds of thousands of years.

In my opinion, if it happened here, the chances of it happening elsewhere in this infinitely expanding universe are about as certain as you can get. I've got my WELCOME TO EARTH sign duct taped to the roof already.

C.

[Almighty Colin]

Cal,

Are you talking about "The Big Collision", the theory by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt?

If not, reference please.



Last edited by Colin at Nov 19 2002, 07:09 PM

[Almighty Colin]

The real problem with life forming is not a "habitable zone" but rather the question of abiogenesis.
How likely is it that a self replicating molecule would form at random? Well really, we don't know anything about that. Many estimate the odds to be so low that it wouldn't happen in the Universe anywhere ever. So either there is some sort of self organization that makes the whole process a lot more likely than chance would dictate or else it truly is a damned miracle, the luckiest of all lucky events and again - maybe we are the only ones then.



Last edited by Colin at Nov 19 2002, 07:30 PM

[Vick]

Scientists have finally modeled what they call a 'second big bang'

Hey that's me ...
The best bang since the big one :P

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 19 2002, 04:06 PM
Cal,

Are you talking about "The Big Collision", the theory by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt?

If not, reference please.

I was talking in particular about research by Abel, Norman, and Bryan. Specifically their computer modeling which has recreated this process. To quote:

'The trouble with earlier predictions was that none of them could account for all the complex steps involved in the transformation of a cloud hundreds of light-years in size to something as relatively puny as a star. At some point, calculations simply gave way to educated guesses. Abel, Norman, and Bryan took away the guesswork.'

Discover, December 2002

The two of us read different types of stuff I'm thinking, you definitely appear to be more in the math/theoretical area of science, whereas I read actual studies and findings from the sciences. So I just regurgitate, which is fine with me, not enough hours in the day to read long novels.

I think the evidence of hydrogen and oxygen, and potential findings showing atmospheres on other planets outside of our solar system implies that complex molecules are a lot more common than some people think. Again I'm not really qualified to make such judgements, but based on my casual observer standpoint, the universe is too huge and diverse NOT to have created the same types of molecules in more than one location. The big bang, 1st and 2nd, were both extremely big and random events, no doubt about it. But if we came out of one of many hydrogen clouds, I think it's logical to assume some similar matter may have come out of all the others as well.

Who knows, I'm grasping at straws to be sure. I just can't imagine there NOT being life elsewhere in the universe. Pick your poison.

C.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Cal@Nov 19 2002, 08:29 PM
not enough hours in the day to read long novels.

So you skip JR's posts?!

[Torone]

I LOVE this topic! Unfortunately, I have to be at a hazmat certification class (DOT requirement) by 0600 this am. Maybe this evening...

[Almighty Colin]

Cal,

Poor assumption on my reading material. ;-)

Regardless, wouldn't you agree that the more difficult problem in the creation of life is not having a place to put it but forming self-replicating molecules? It's not an astronomical/physics problem as much as a biological and chemical one? Some of the estimates for a self-replicating molecule forming at random are so mindstaggeringly small than the number of molecules in the universe would not be sufficient.

All the H20 in the world won't solve that problem. Neither will 100 billion or even 1 trillion galaxies.

So the issue is either that there are some self-organizing features in nature that lead to self-replicating molecules (possible) or the chances are staggeringly small and then why did it happen and did it just happen once? Maybe it happened once and has spread ;-) Maybe it is self-organizing and completely normal. Maybe it's even in our solar system. To me, we don't know anything because we know only one case and there are just as many assumptions on the
(ahem!) pro-life side as the negative.

In the 5 billion or so years that Earth has been here, we are only aware of life having formed once. It seems that all life here is descended from one common ancestor. Even the eukaryotes and prokaryotes are related. So the odds are probably vanishingly small.

[Almighty Colin]

Torone - let's do it up. I need something new. Whatcha got?

Yeah Colin, it's a tough call believe me. We are at the opposite ends of the spectrum though I'm thinking. The chances that our tiny fraction of the matter explosion created the molecule(s) and none of the others did? I'd say the chances are just as mindstaggeringly small that it only happened once in the unimaginably large process of the creation of the universe.

You're right there are multiple factors, but to me the evidence of other planets with habitable atmospheres and orbits implies that there is some sort of purpose behind what happened to us (no not design theory or anything); that our planet didn't randomly harbor life AND the only habitable atmosphere for it. Unless these other planets are meant as galactic rest stops for our civilization (seems pretty centrist) why not think of them as potential petri dishes for other civilizations?

We'll be able to get a better look at them in 10-15 years, we can start a pool in the mean time if you want.

C.

unimaginably large
mindstaggeringly small
vanishingly small
relatively puny
--------------------------
you two are just a couple posts away from making words up to defend your positions about "large" and "small"





Last edited by -= JR =- at Nov 20 2002, 12:18 PM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by -= JR =-@Nov 20 2002, 12:12 PM
unimaginably large
mindstaggeringly small
vanishingly small.
--------------------------
you two are just a couple posts away from making words up to defend your positions about "large" and "small"

I prefered those adjectives to 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (best estimate)
and

1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000 (normal estimate)

errr .. make that 1 in 1 10^300.

If we typed it out mathemtically I think it'd be longer than most of your posts JR. We're just trying to show a little respect.

C.

[Almighty Colin]

Cal,

How does that change anything? Even if we find billions of habitable planets it doesn't mean we'll find even one habited planet.

An example of the problem of abiogenesis. The organism with the smallest known genome, M. genitalium, has about 600,000 DNA bases. Bases can be A,G,T, or C. That is 4 to the 600000th power possibilities. That's about 10 to the 360k possibilities - more than the number of atoms in the universe by any stretch of the imagination. Getting that at random seems to be damned near impossible. So maybe the problem isn't as difficult as that? Maybe there is self-organization but we don't know that.

The possibility of life arising on a particular planet is (nearly) the possibility on one planet times the number of habitable planets (actually smaller). Even with trillions of planets that means hardly anything if the odds of it happening are 1 in something followed by more than 12 zeros. The odds of biogenesis occuring at random seem to be much lower than that.

We may take some very reasonable guesses about the second number, habitable planers, but how can we guess at the first?

Cal, you're discussing the possibility of habitable planets and I am discussing the possibility of habitated planets. I completely agree that it is extremely likely there are billions of habitable planets. That's a completely different question than whether life does exist in any of them. Just because there are trillions of places in the universe with a 50 yard long space doesn't mean there are any track events on them. Trillions of 50 yard tracks but no races.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Cal@Nov 20 2002, 12:05 PM
The chances that our tiny fraction of the matter explosion created the molecule(s) and none of the others did? I

Tthe molecules are there. I'll agree with that. So what? Can you make them dance?

Hey never said I had any proof, just wishful thinking.

According to many scientists the earth's 'life' managed to survive major cataclysms on the surface of the planet. If our molecules were not only miraculously deposited here but had the intelligence to evade destruction, that seems pretty remarkable to me, and increases, in my view, the chances that life was allowed to mature unmolested in other locations in the universe.

I think the fundamental problem here is that I'm mostly stating opinion and you're giving me mathematical probabilities. I won't deny that the numbers aren't in favor of life blooming all over the galaxies, but the cynic in me wonders if numbers CREATED by man can accurately map something far beyond our comprehension or control.

Based on my observations of current scientific findings I have a high degree of faith in the power of nature to constantly surprise us. While I wouldn't bet on WHAT we'll find, I'd bet we'll find something!

C.

[Almighty Colin]

Cal,

I am also wishful. I am still hoping for life even in our solar system, maybe on Europa. I think it possible (hope) that self-organization is a normal state and so are self-replicating molecules.

I hope that SETI finds something.

I hope they land on the White House lawn.

[Edd]

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 20 2002, 01:01 PM
Cal,

I am also wishful. I am still hoping for life even in our solar system, maybe on Europa. I think it possible (hope) that self-organization is a normal state and so are self-replicating molecules.

I hope that SETI finds something.

I hope they land on the White House lawn.

[Almighty Colin]

Edd,

Do you think aliens would vote Republican or Democrat?

The aliens we have on this planet (Europeans) tend towards socialism so I have high hopes for extra terrestrials!

C.

[Edd]

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 20 2002, 01:33 PM
Edd,

Do you think aliens would vote Republican or Democrat?

Colin - I think they'd vote "Zardoz"!

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers
exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will
instantly dissapear and be replaced by something even more
bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states
that this has already happened"

-Douglas Adams

[Dravyk]

Colin, I'm shocked you haven't posted that 50-year old theorm with all the calculations ... How does that go?

Something like ... if only one star in a million was like our star (not a red giant or white dwarf or black hole), and if of those one star in a million had planets around it ... etc.

[Torone]

Colin,
Is there a particular reason why I seem to relate

"I prefered those adjectives to 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (best estimate)
and

1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000 (normal estimate)

errr .. make that 1 in 1 10^300. "
to the speed of light (metric)?

[slavdogg]

til someone prooves otherwise, there is no other life in the universe.

i would like to think there is, but we'll just have to sit and wait.

[Almighty Colin]

Dravyk,

I thought someone else would! It's called the Drake Equation. It's really quite simple. Even a child might think of it.

The problem for me is the equation is useless because of terms like

"% of planets where live will develop"
and
"% of planets with life that develop intelligence"

What to plug in? Maybe the odds of those multiply 1 in a trillion or something. In fact, here we are! Really, I think it quite silly to think that maybe 10% of planets with life evolve "intelligence". It should be a very small number. There have been billions of species on earth and that we are here is just plain lucky. Maybe 1 in a billion species. The history of life on earth is the history of bacteria. Life doesn't have to be smarter than you. It just has to be capable of eating you.