View Single Post
Old 11-15-2014, 05:49 PM  
Idigmygirls
Confirmed User
 
Idigmygirls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo View Post
The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi and Michael H. Hart, are:

The Sun is a typical star, and relatively young. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older.
Almost surely, some of these stars will have Earth-like planets. Assuming the Earth is typical, some of these planets may develop intelligent life.
Some of these civilizations may develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now (such as the 100 Year Starship).
Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.

According to this line of thinking, the Earth should already have been colonized, or at least visited. But no convincing evidence of this exists.

Furthermore, no confirmed signs of intelligence elsewhere have yet been spotted in our galaxy or (to the extent it would be detectable) elsewhere in the observable universe.


With no evidence of intelligent life other than ourselves, it appears that the process of starting with a star and ending with "advanced explosive lasting life" must be unlikely.



we are all alone peeps.
When did you see that argument made?

I made the same argument, almost word-for-word in my first novel, "The Minerva Virus" (hardcover and ebook available on Amazon) about 10 YEARS AGO.

I wrote a paper on it almost 12 years ago, and the proof was much more extensive.

Just curious if this was something they "came out" with recently?
Idigmygirls is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote