Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(17-07-2015 09:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  Like Santa, Jeebus flits about the universe bestowing his gift on all the deserving little worlds.

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away...

JESUS

got nailed to *another* fucking cross...

I mean, fuck, this Son of God gig ain't all fun and games, let me tell ya Sadcryface

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 11:31 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(17-07-2015 06:27 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Know why so many people are opposed to the idea of life elsewhere in the universe??

Ego.

The Catholic Church didn't admit that earth was NOT the center of the universe until 1992... https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1...as-right-/

Don't soft pedal it - or apologize --- the OFFICIAL DOGMA was the earth was the center of the universe until Pope John Paul II...

Now - watch the "believers" try to re-write history - like they ALWAYS do....

Every once in a while, I pop on over to Suscipe Domine to see what kind of wacky shit they're into today. There is a current thread in which someone is claiming, apparently with a perfectly straight face, that this is still the official dogma of the Catholic Church. But then, they are not big fans of JPII.

Never mind that I was taught correct modern science in Catholic schools in the 1960s.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 11:49 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
I enjoy considering the Drake Equation. Originally, Sagan used it to discuss the possibility of life in our own galaxy.

In essence it calculates the rate of star formation, fractions of stars that have planets, average number of planets that can support life, the fraction of planets that could support life end up developing life, the fraction of those planets that will develop a civilization and finally the length of time that the civilization will survive.





Now... this is only factoring into OUR galaxy. Just ours. The other thing here is that often time, we humans tend to be pretty arrogant in our predictions, and by that, I mean that the only life we know has DNA. It's the only self replicating thing we know of that coincides with life itself.

What if there are other self replicating molecules out there? What if we fail to understand the possibility of a different kind of life that could inhabit a different kind of planet.

The other thing here is that the Drake Equation only covers our galaxy. Take this equation and multiply this times the billions and billions and BILLIONS of galaxies in our observable universe and consider whether or not life could exist. I think that we would be silly to consider we are the only ones.

Perhaps we will never know, and perhaps other civilizations have come and gone. Consider that we humans have only been around for a very short period of time. Our civilization has only had the capability to communicate with radios, microwave frequencies and our forms of technology for.... how long?

Consider how long it takes for our communications to reach out into space. Our footprint is so small. Consider that if other civilizations crop up, they are potentially just as likely as we are to blow themselves up, kill each other, etc. Consider how long they might actually be alive, vs how long they may communicate, and their footprint of existence.

Perhaps life crops up far more than we know, and snuffs itself out, and in the vast reaches of space, somewhere out there, another civilization is asking the same question, in a galaxy 5 million light years away from us. They ponder how rare life must be, will never know we exist, and in a few thousand years, civil war breaks out, they destroy themselves with similar weapons of destruction, and we would be none the wiser.

Potentially impossible to know. Curious questions to ponder, but the odds are more in favor of life, than against it. Especially when you consider the possibility of big time, and how much time each potentially inhabitable planet has to develop life.

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
17-07-2015, 11:53 AM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
I think it's rather obvious -- if life was so rare - that it only happened ONCE -- howcome this planet is overrun with it????

Seems to me that it's probably a lot more common that we know.....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
17-07-2015, 01:19 PM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(17-07-2015 11:53 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I think it's rather obvious -- if life was so rare - that it only happened ONCE -- howcome this planet is overrun with it????

Seems to me that it's probably a lot more common that we know.....
This planet is overrun with life because we are all descended from a common ancestor and life has been evolving into many adaptive spaces ever since. The fungus, the carrots, the bacteria are all our cousins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(17-07-2015 01:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-07-2015 11:53 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I think it's rather obvious -- if life was so rare - that it only happened ONCE -- howcome this planet is overrun with it????

Seems to me that it's probably a lot more common that we know.....
This planet is overrun with life because we are all descended from a common ancestor and life has been evolving into many adaptive spaces ever since. The fungus, the carrots, the bacteria are all our cousins.

yes -- but if life wasn't adaptive - and likely to spread -- we wouldn't have evolved.... This is a strong inference that life would be likely to occur in other places at other times......

This common ancestor might not even be from this planet........


That'd go a long way to explaining some people...

Big Grin

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 01:50 PM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2015 02:10 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(17-07-2015 01:33 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  yes -- but if life wasn't adaptive - and likely to spread -- we wouldn't have evolved.... This is a strong inference that life would be likely to occur in other places at other times......

This common ancestor might not even be from this planet........


That'd go a long way to explaining some people...

Big Grin
Yeah, well. We know that life is highly adaptive and can survive in a variety of conditions, however we don't know how difficult Abiogenesis is.
I think a key indicator is that it appears Abiogenesis occurred very early in Earth's history, once Earth cooled down enough, life sprung forth.


With regards to SETI, if you consider other intelligent life trying to find Earth, well in our 5 billion year history there has only been around 200 years where our technology has made us possible to be detected in the universe.
200 years out of 5 billion.
Most of the stars in the Milky way are over 200 light years away, the milky way is 100,000 light years across.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 03:35 PM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(17-07-2015 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-07-2015 01:33 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  yes -- but if life wasn't adaptive - and likely to spread -- we wouldn't have evolved.... This is a strong inference that life would be likely to occur in other places at other times......

This common ancestor might not even be from this planet........


That'd go a long way to explaining some people...

Big Grin
Yeah, well. We know that life is highly adaptive and can survive in a variety of conditions, however we don't know how difficult Abiogenesis is.
I think a key indicator is that it appears Abiogenesis occurred very early in Earth's history, once Earth cooled down enough, life sprung forth.


With regards to SETI, if you consider other intelligent life trying to find Earth, well in our 5 billion year history there has only been around 200 years where our technology has made us possible to be detected in the universe.
200 years out of 5 billion.
Most of the stars in the Milky way are over 200 light years away, the milky way is 100,000 light years across.

Less than 200 years... Radio frequencies under 40 mhz were not in use prior to WWII --- and only frequencies above that will penetrate the atmosphere to detectable levels at any distance.

And I wasn't referring to intelligent life -- but possibly microbial -- like bacteria --- hitchhiking on cosmic debris.....

We simply don't have enough information to know if that's possible or not......

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2015, 08:26 PM (This post was last modified: 20-07-2015 08:42 PM by Terry.)
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(08-07-2015 04:26 PM)666wannabe Wrote:  According to Stephen Hawking, there are about 200 conditions that need to be present in order for life to exist.
. In no way does this suggest that the configuration was designed to produce life, but, simply, that life developed as a result of this configuration being what it was.

This is, however, an argument against this particular configuration ever occurring again, in a finite universe (or multi-verse). Perhaps, this is why SETI (or Jodie Foster) failed in their efforts to contact extraterrestrials.
First Stephen Hawkins is a physicist, not a biologist.
Many people make the mistake of according experts, even brilliant experts, in one field, expert status in another. We need to be careful about that.

Second, Just because life happened to come about on Earth under Earths specific conditions, in no way means that life couldn't evolve in different conditions.
Believing Earth's conditions are the only conditions for life is taking a narrow view.
We aren't even fully aware how abiogenesis occurred on Earth, let alone of all the ways it could occur elsewhere.

“The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Terry's post
20-07-2015, 09:34 PM (This post was last modified: 20-07-2015 09:38 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
Attempting to communicate via radio waves (or use them to detect extraterrestrial civilization) assumes several things:

1. That they are within a detectable radius of us, meaning their signals are strong enough for our equipment to pick up across the interstellar distance. Signal attenuates as the square of the distance, so something twice as far away does not have half the signal, but 1/4th.

2. That they even use EM comms, instead of something more efficient like, say dark energy. Odds are that any nearby civilization is nowhere near in-synch with us, in terms of the formation of their star system, planet, evolutionary pathway/timeline, and technological development stage. Just think, if not for the rise of Christianity (and thus the Dark Ages), we ourselves would be 1000 years more-advanced, and likely using something that would no more communicate with today's sensors than semaphore would talk to our smartphones.

3. That we are within the distance/time radii or the period during which a civilization that did use EM comms started and then stopped using them for something else. We have had radio only a century. If tomorrow, someone comes up with something significantly better (see #2), we'd stop using EM frequencies and switch over to the new format, and there'd be a thin shell only 100-lightyears-across radiating out from us; those within the shell who did not yet develop EM sensing technology would have "missed" the signal as it passed by. In other words, what if all transmissions from the only civilization in range, orbiting Betelgeuse, passed by earth between 1375 C.E. and 1902 C.E.?

4. That even if they do fit all of the above criteria, being in range with EM comms at detectable levels, they use patterns which we would recognize. Our F-22 "stealthy" air-superiority fighter uses a "low-observable" AN/APG-77 radar which sends out a signal on multiple frequencies (called "wide bandwidth") at once, in much lower power levels than previous radars, and uses the multitude of returns to "build" an accurate picture. We could be receiving huge amounts of signal, but not be able to process it into a meaningful return simply because we don't have the algorithm to know what the pulse rate frequency or frequency-agility settings are.

5. That life tends to evolve intelligence and/or that intelligence=technology. There is every indication that, at least based on humanity's showing, the rise of intelligence represents an evolutionary dead-end. There may be only a few species that develop intelligence, and of those, technology may not be something that ever arises... it was our bipedalism that really gave us the capacity to develop technology. No matter how smart dolphins get, their lack of fingers will probably keep them from becoming a true technological civilization. We could be surrounded on every nearby star by species smarter than us, yet totally devoid of stone axes, let alone radios.

And so on.

(Edited to correct some grammar and tense-agreement.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: