dyna mo

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.

jaYMan

So says who?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

-------------------------------------------------------
I can only imagine the guy that came up with this.


So we went from 1,000,000 years of species, and not a single wheel. Then, out of nowhere, we have the past 50 years, which has seen more tech & dev than the million years before.

__________________
peace&profit,
jaYMan

jaYMan

What do you think of this? Ten-Fifteen minute read at least unless you're just a skimmer.

http://earthweareone.com/alien-messa...at-we-show-up/

__________________
peace&profit,
jaYMan

seeandsee

what bothers me, is that only humans are intelligent to understand something more, all other living stuff on earth is low on brain, so maybe lots of planet have same shit, just no intelligent life...

__________________
BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year

Contact here

CaptainHowdy

__________________
FLASH SALE INSANITY! deal with a 100% Trusted Seller
Buy Traffic Spots on a High-Quality Network
1 Year or Lifetime — That’s Right, Until the Internet Explodes!

dyna mo

Fermi does and he illustrates that in the Fermi Paradox
http://www.seti.org/seti-institute/p.../fermi-paradox

the drake equation also
http://www.seti.org/drakeequation

and the great filter, The Great Filter, in the context of the Fermi paradox, is whatever prevents "dead matter" from giving rise, in time, to "expanding lasting life". The concept originates in Robin Hanson's argument that the failure to find any extraterrestrial civilizations in the observable universe implies the possibility something is wrong with one or more of the arguments from various scientific disciplines that the appearance of advanced intelligent life is probable; this observation is conceptualized in terms of a "Great Filter" which acts to reduce the great number of sites where intelligent life might arise to the tiny number of intelligent species actually observed (currently just one: human).

BFT3K

The fact that aliens do NOT visit our planet PROVES there IS intelligent life out there.

Scott McD

__________________

johnny o

you are wrong on so many levels, but ignorance is bliss.

__________________
http://candydreams.com
info[at]candydreams[dot]com

dyna mo

You as in Enrico Fermi? The one who made the above observation over 50 years ago and it's yet to be proven wrong? In spite of how much more info we've gathered since he made his statement?

You're saying that world-reknown physicist Enrico Fermi is wrong and all the other scientists who can't disprove his observation are incapable? And all of the data gathered in the past 50 years failed?

please, share your lack of ignorance with the ignorant you mention. Feel free to prove the paradox invalid.

go on, dazzle the ignorami.

dyna mo

update us all on why in spite of the Drake equation, not one single shred of evidence has been discovered in the entire universe nor on this entire planet that even remotely suggests intelligent life exists elsewhere.

jaYMan

I'm figuring you had to to read what I posted, isn't that plausable in the least? Not the we are not alone part, but the reasons we may be alone.

Good read thank, gonna add ya.

__________________
peace&profit,
jaYMan

dyna mo

I haven't read it yet, don't spoil it for me!

jaYMan

I'm figuring you had to to read what I posted, isn't that plausable in the least? Not the we are not alone part, but the reasons we may be alone.

Good read thank, gonna add ya.

__________________
peace&profit,
jaYMan

PR_Glen

asking a physicist about the possible existence of life out in the universe is about the same as asking einstein to tell us what makes the best list of ingredients to cook the perfect stew... Not exactly his area of expertise...

Plus he ignores the fact that we lack the ability to view the whole universe no less try to define its ACTUAL size. Who said intelligent life has to be to the same scale size as us?

__________________
webmaster at pimproll dot com

arock10

Ok so first healthy food has no benefits and now we are alone in the universe. You have too much free time

__________________
Sup

edgeprod

Only a complete lack of understanding of the size, scope, and diversity of the universe would lead to swallowing Fermi's hypothesis on this matter ... that, and an ego the size of the known universe, to think that humanity is remotely special, let alone unique.

SuckOnThis

So because we haven't seen aliens that is proof no life exists? I thought you were smarter than this. The nearest star system is 4.3 light years away, so even if we could travel at the speed of light (physics says it is an impossibility for matter to travel at the speed of light) it would take 4.3 years to get there. If we could perfect matter/anti-matter space travel the best we could do is 10% the speed of light so that would take 43 years at that speed. And thats just to the nearest star. To the other side of the Milky Way? 100,000 light years (a million years). The closest galaxy? 2.2 million light years.

There are over 300 billion stars in our galaxy and the amount of planets could well be over 3 trillion, count moons and that could be as high as 30 trillion. Of those the number of Earth like planets are at least in the billions (scientists estimate close to 9 billion). On top of this there are over 100 million galaxies. That means there are an estimated 900000000000000000 Earth like planets in the entire Universe.

Life in the Universe is not a mathematical probability it is a mathematical certainty.

dyna mo

why haven't the experts debunked his observation? I don't think you need a formal degree in a particular field of science to make an educated and well put observation, which is what he did. he wasn't asked, it's a fun bit of science history btw, he made this casual comment over lunch 50 +years ago and it still holds true.

intelligent life = technology so regardless of size, that tech would have led to colonization.

we can see a vast majority of the universe.

Wouldn't you agree we are 100% alone (intelligent life) in the visible universe?

dyna mo

i understand these topics are too complex for you, thus your inability to contribute to them and your need to make it bizarrely personal.

enjoy your day and run along now.

johnny o

so every UFO sighting (millions of them) including photos and video all have to be a hoax or a weather balloon. makes perfect sense. i'm not here to prove anything to anyone.

you're against global warming too right? so all those scientists are wrong too correct?

__________________
http://candydreams.com
info[at]candydreams[dot]com

dyna mo

I've never claimed to be smart. I am capable of understanding complex subjects. WHile I appreciate you including all the math, I already referred to that by linking Drake's equation to point out exactly what you are reclaiming. Again, in spite of Drake's equation, where is everybody?

Certainly you'd agree with the fact that in the known visible universe which consists of multitudes of galaxies, we are the sole intelligent life?

dyna mo

UFOs prove the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? You're gonna have to provide some support to back that up, prolly starting with some proof UFOs come from other planets.

I'm against global warming? NO.

Again- my issues with global warming 1) the politicization of the science and 2) claiming science is settled.

Slappin Fish

Maybe right there looking at you. bacteria has no idea it's being 'visited' when it's under the microscope.

Look at the progress we've made in the past 50 years, you have to think civilizations millions of years more advanced don't clumsily drag their shit around.

dyna mo

You should email SETI to get them to remove the FErmi link, it taints their credibility. Especially the part where brilliant scientists take Fermi's Paradox seriously.

http://www.seti.org/seti-institute/p.../fermi-paradox

dyna mo

Oh, there's bacteria everywhere. but it's not intelligent.

Here's the line of thinking scientists who are open to all possibilities and who are much much smarter than all of us put together have,

They ask why hasn't any evidence been found? It's a valid question and you'd be hard-pressed to find any ego in that quest.

specifically, their thinking addresses how the process of intelligent life is understood-


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. This implies that at least one step in this process must be improbable. Hanson's list, while incomplete, describes the following nine steps in an "evolutionary path" that results in the colonization of the observable universe:

The right star system (including organics and potentially habitable planets)
Reproductive molecules (e.g., RNA)
Simple (prokaryotic) single-cell life
Complex (archaeatic and eukaryotic) single-cell life
Sexual reproduction
Multi-cell life
Tool-using animals with big brains
Where we are now
Colonization explosion.
According to the Great Filter hypothesis at least one of these steps - if the list were complete - must be improbable. If it's not an early step (i.e., in our past), then the implication is that the improbable step lies in our future and our prospects of reaching step 9 (interstellar colonization) are still bleak. If the past steps are likely, then many civilizations would have developed to the current level of the human race. However, none appear to have made it to step 9, or the Milky Way would be full of colonies. So perhaps step 9 is the unlikely one, and the only thing that appears likely to keep us from step 9 is some sort of catastrophe or the resource exhaustion leading to impossibility to make the step due to consumption of the available resources (like for example highly constrained energy resources). So by this argument, finding multicellular life on Mars (provided it evolved independently) would be bad news, since it would imply steps 2–6 are easy, and hence only 1, 7, 8 or 9 (or some unknown step) could be the big problem.

bronco67

I have to agree... that kind of makes sense. Why haven't we been visited and buttfucked by others like us who have made it further technologically?

__________________

MiamiBoyz

True...there most likely is a lot of life on other planets BUT did it evolve to the point of intelligence? And even it it did...did they have the desire to leave their home planet or were they are one with the planet and content to stay there.

It is unknown if it is even possible to travel the great distances needed to go from one galaxy to another (Star Trek is not real). And even if it is not...no alien probe has ever been found or detected. Nor any sort of transmission which would be the most likely form of communication.

We might never have a conversation of any sort with any intelligent life outside of our planet.

Relentless

It's arrogant to say 'other intelligent life' - have you looked at 'us' lately?

__________________


Website Secure | Engine Food
ICQ# 266-942-896

rogueteens

you talk about our galaxy in the text but claim in the title that there is no other intelligent life in the universe, those two things are totally separate. it is more than possible that there is life in one of those other galaxies and humanity would never know about it, not even in our far-flung future.
Even in sci-fi, only the daft and ill-thought out stories go to other galaxies.

__________________
Free traffic and backlinks from one of the fastest growing adult pinsites on the net - SAUCY PICTURES!
Easily my best performing webcam sponsor - CLICK HERE!!

mineistaken

Wrong "logic" on so many levels, few of them were already covered by others.
I would say you are trolling, just like with your healthy food "fact". If not - consider yourself not very smart. No offense, just a fact.

dyna mo

there's our galaxy, the visible universe and the entire universe.

Certainly you'd have to agree with the fact that there's no other intelligent life in the visible universe right? How many galaxies are there in the visible universe?

I extrapolated from that and titled the thread to be about the entire universe.

dyna mo

you can't see that the logic I am posting here is cut and pasted logic of people much smarter than you (and me combined)? even though I even mentioned that?

also, since I obviously agitated you (and other who didn't get it) with my healthy food fact thread, I'll take the time and explain to you the point of it- real health comes from being both physically and mentally active, eating healthier (which is the wording I used) SUPPORTS that healthy lifestyle. If you want to "solve" your unhealthy life problem, start by being active, not by eating steamed brussel sprouts.

you're welcome.

jaYMan

all this depends on your understand of the word consiousness.

Read my link! ;)) It makes you think!



edgeprod, I have to agree with ya.

__________________
peace&profit,
jaYMan

brassmonkey

well there is no proof so...

__________________
TRUMP 2025 KEKAW!!! - The Laken Riley Act Is Law!
DACA ENDED - SUPPORT AZ HCR 2060 52R - email: brassballz-at-techie.com

arock10

Wow did we just agree on something? Maybe there is hope for humanity after all

__________________
Sup

jaYMan

How can you not see? From an airplane I see tens of thousands of houses, esp at 30k. No people though! And here we have a Hubble Deep Field shot, what, 30k mill or more???

__________________
peace&profit,
jaYMan

pornguy

Maybe we ARE the colony.

__________________
PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic

AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online!
TChicks.com | Angeles Cid | Mariana Cordoba | MAILERS WELCOME!

Slappin Fish

Bacteria was just an example. binoculars and a pack of dogs works just the same.

My personal objection to the Fermi paradox is his "we would have found evidence" statement. any civilization capable of observing earth would have to be MILLIONS of years more advanced than ours, it's a bit presumptuous to think we have the mental capacity to even begin to understand their technology or that we can detect them with our shitty radio emissions.

Hanson's list is a slightly different debate...anyway... interesting questions

dyna mo

Fermi's Paradox-->great filter-->Hanson's list

c&p'ed (again, not claiming to be smart enough to make these conclusions on my own, but I am picking sides ;-)

There is no reliable evidence aliens have visited Earth and we have observed no intelligent extraterrestrial life with current technology nor has SETI found any transmissions from other civilizations. The Universe, apart from the Earth, seems "dead"; Hanson states:

Our planet and solar system, however, don't look substantially colonized by advanced competitive life from the stars, and neither does anything else we see. To the contrary, we have had great success at explaining the behavior of our planet and solar system, nearby stars, our galaxy, and even other galaxies, via simple "dead" physical processes, rather than the complex purposeful processes of advanced life.

Life is expected to expand to fill all available niches. With technology such as self-replicating spacecraft, these niches would include neighbouring star systems and even, on longer time scales which are still small compared to the age of the universe, other galaxies. Hanson notes, "If such advanced life had substantially colonized our planet, we would know it by now."

fetishwealth

Shit, I wish everything else could be proofed too.

PR_Glen

See how that works?

This is an intro to philosophy level argument btw... creating a self serving paradox doesn't imply fact.

__________________
webmaster at pimproll dot com

dyna mo

I'm not sure why you're choosing to debate this on the merits of logical fallacies but those things you say are assumption and such are actually proven. we can and do see a vast amount of the universe. While I am very much opposed to any view that science is settled, most scientists agree intelligent life requires technology and colonization. Not sure how you can label the fact that within the visible universe, we have not seen or heard from intelligent life, as an assumption.

aka123

Are we that dumb? And all the other fauna here on Earth too?

Well, distances are huge on space. Can't say shit about other intelligent life outside Earth. Intelligent or not, it's better that they don't show their sorry asses around here.

SuckOnThis

I think you seem to think that we can point a telescope at a planet outside of our solar system and determine if there is life, we cannot. Nor could we pick up their radio waves. And that is the CLOSEST planet. So when you say 'visible universe' what exactly does that mean? The Hubble would not be able to determine if there was life on Pluto.

Also you assume other intelligent life would have evolved to the point of interstellar space travel, we are far from that. And then there is the theory that if a planetary species has evolved to an intelligent form they would be the dominant ones on their planet and therefore an aggressive species and killed themselves off by nuclear war or whatever. But really, unless worm hole travel actually exists, or the possibility of manipulating the fabric of space there is simply to much space between planets. And who's to say we're not ancestors of an alien planet?

But remember this; there is NOTHING in the Universe that there is only one of.

PR_Glen

another assumption that isn't true.

your assumptions are on the level of a hormonal teenager here...

__________________
webmaster at pimproll dot com

dyna mo

No, again, I am not smart enough to put these sorts of ideas together. I simply like these sorts of subjects and pick a side based on my understanding at the time and beliefs. That said you are misstating the view I am choosing to side with, that view is based on statistics and our understanding of how life evolves. combined with what we CAN determine re: the visible universe, we know that we are alone.

PR_Glen

untrue again..

__________________
webmaster at pimproll dot com

dyna mo

PR_Glen, I was going to try and engage you in an adult to&fro and ask for you view on a few specifics here but I can see that would be a dead-end. funny how some people's beliefs in science need to be propped up with personal insults.

CaptainHowdy

Well played, dyna mo.

__________________
FLASH SALE INSANITY! deal with a 100% Trusted Seller
Buy Traffic Spots on a High-Quality Network
1 Year or Lifetime — That’s Right, Until the Internet Explodes!