Do You BELIEVE there is life outside Earth?

[Blasty McBlastblast]

There are at least 6 people (that we know of) living outside of the earth right now, so i say yes   

Also I'm confident that with enough time humans will spread life all over the place, either biological or mechanical

[PB666]

BTW, Im hearth-less

[Green Baron]

 

Since this thread is about belief in opposition to science, i can actually imagine that we manage to make this place pretty uncomfortable soon, during the course of this century but before its end. Due to environmental changes, climate, mass extinction, overpopulation, resource depletion and a totally debt financed economy it might well be that people in 2 or 3 decades will have other problems than dreaming of life(tm) elsewhere.

I am old and pessimistic and not always completely serious :-)

 

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Steel said:

You mean like this thing that we can already do with current technology?

http://www.physics.uu.se/research/astronomy-and-space-physics/research/planets/exoplanet-atmospheres/

Yes, but not hot Jupiters, earth sized ones in the Goldilocks zone. 

[YNM]

In case I haven't picked up OPs "thoughts" :

Presumptions in science is neutral, as long as you keep a level head whatever happens, whatever turn true. Sometimes it's near-impossible not to have presumptions; sometimes it's totally impossible to continue without presumptions. It's fine to keep one's presumptions, as long as one stay true to the question, and don't postulate presumptions as completely unchangeable. Heck, skepticity is a form of presumption - a devil's advocate one sometimes - but most people who apply science retain them because more often they result in the true. So it's fine to keep a view that "there's probably nothing there", because we don't know whether such is true or not ! Only time could tell, or our own effort.

[regex]

2 hours ago, Green Baron said:

it might well be that people in 2 or 3 decades will have other problems than dreaming of life(tm) elsewhere.

IMO we're already there. It's why I like to talk on a forum for a video game about random things that take my mind away from the daily disaster I brought a child into.

[Dafni]

8 minutes ago, regex said:

... take my mind away from the daily disaster I brought a child into.

I can relate to that sentiment.

[Green Baron]

And i'm two generation behind and a mod will soon remind us that idle talk is unwanted since we are in a serious subforum .

 

[Mr. Peabody]

Is there life outside Earth? That's a hard question to answer and cannot be validated with scientific facts at this time. This may not be the most popular view, but I do not believe there is life in our solar system. It's really 50-50. In the countless galaxies and solar systems throughout space, who knows? There could be life there but if there is I doubt it is highly intelligent. Like I said earlier, this is really all speculation so none of our opinions really matter in the long run.

 

[Terwin]

13 hours ago, PB666 said:

I don't think life is as common as many here want it to be, and sentient life is very uncommon. Those that have set their hopes in the next earth-like planet are more often than not disappointed. THeres alot that goes into making our planet tick, a long check list of things that need to just so to have sentient life. I think asking the question whether there are other sentients in the Universe is a bit like asking what happens beyond the event horizon of a black hole or when one travels faster than the speed of light. The profound distances involved in Intergalactic spaces makes it unlikely whether we will ever know. That creates a false argument because then we have to ask 'well what about other sentient life within our galaxy (start checking of a large number of creatures on earth)' we are expanding our list of sentient creatures at home, or redefining the word . . . . . . . .

I do not think that intelligent life is as hard to come by as it might seem.

Lots of species actively think about novel situations they encounter so as to classify them(food, threat, mate, etc).  

This means that the mechanisms of thought are well distributed, but not biologically advantageous for most species due to the energy costs.

If the mechanisms are well distributed, you just need an environment where frequent/constant thought becomes advantageous(such as out-smarting prey when endurance hunting as a way to save calories as a potential source of our own ongoing thought)

Once you are in a scenario where there is an evolutionary advantage for being smarter, intelligent thought  is only a matter of time and evolutionary pressure.(so long as you are not in a dead-end niche or run out your food supply)

[adsii1970]

15 hours ago, Just Jim said:

Absolutely!

The more evidence they find it may exist in our own solar system in places like Europa and Enceladus, combined with how monstrously huge the universe is... not to mention there may be parallel universes... In my mind the numbers are just so staggering, I don't see how life, in some form or another, couldn't be out there... somewhere.

Problem is finding it.

Yes, and Dr. Gregory, a very wise professor whom I had the privilege of studying anthropology under, made an observation that I think warrants some thought. He basically stated that what if because of the age of the galaxy, and with our own solar system created sometime during the galaxy's formation... what if life beyond our solar system is no more advanced than we are?

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by adsii1970

[Green Baron]

Indeed, @adsii1970, we've discussed that in the Fermi-thread (though i abhor the term "creation" :-)) as a possible solution to the eponymous paradox.

We might be early on a universe scale, given that the universe needed some time to cool down, conditions get calmer from the first generations of huge suns. Heavy elements needed time to be bred in supernovae, to form planetary disks and new suns, burn out again and so on. Even with an abundant supply of elements it took ~3.8Gy from first self replicating chemistry to people like us. I doubt this could have happened in a universe in its wild years.

And all the time earth was a safe place with what i would call very favourable conditions, concerning energy supply, surface temperature and radiation shielding.

It might well be that later ones will not have the chance to see many other galaxies as the universe gets darker as it expands and more and more other galaxies drift out of view.

 

But it is a hypothesis or speculation as good as any other.

And i said i didn't want to speculate. Silly me :-)

Edited November 1, 2017 by Green Baron

[adsii1970]

13 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

(though i abhor the term "creation" :-))

Think of creation in the loose sense of a point of origin, not in the strictly religious sense...  

 

[Slam_Jones]

I firmly believe that life exists outside of our solar system, somewhere in the universe.

I also feel like it's probably just single-cell organisms for the most part.  I sincerely doubt that there are "little green men" of any variety out there, though.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Slam_Jones

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Terwin said:

I do not think that intelligent life is as hard to come by as it might seem.

Lots of species actively think about novel situations they encounter so as to classify them(food, threat, mate, etc).  

This means that the mechanisms of thought are well distributed, but not biologically advantageous for most species due to the energy costs.

If the mechanisms are well distributed, you just need an environment where frequent/constant thought becomes advantageous(such as out-smarting prey when endurance hunting as a way to save calories as a potential source of our own ongoing thought)

Once you are in a scenario where there is an evolutionary advantage for being smarter, intelligent thought  is only a matter of time and evolutionary pressure.(so long as you are not in a dead-end niche or run out your food supply)

Mammals and birds are pretty smart, same with some other animals like octopuses. 
However being smart enough to open an door and be sapient is an major step. 
One issue is that high intelligence don't really pay of until its start getting human level if you are an smart mammal. 
You are smart enough to handle your environment even work in groups like an wolf pack but being twice as smart will not be an huge advantage. 
It worked out for humans as we become smart to deal with each other, the most mentally challenging things early humanoids encountered was other humanoids. 
This generated an selective pressure for intelligence, however it took long time before it paid of in increased survival. 
How common this would be, good guessing.

Now even if you have intelligence not sure you get an technical civilization, are you smart enough for one, that if the end result ended more stupid? You have an narrower birth channel or head is different. or you are an larger predator, think Kziin, planet could handle far fewer of them so much slower development. 
Or my pet theory, humans work very well in large groups, this make civilization possible, its rare and its not something who evolved somehow. No large long lasting civilizations. 

 

[Helmetman]

Let me put it this way.

If hundred billions of galaxies spawned just for drooling humans to walk upon a surface with the present practice to extend their imagination by animating green goblins on a monitor as substitute for potential but not yet found life beyond our making then either the Universe has done something wrong, or we are the first to animate things on lcd screens and put things into orbit.

I lean towards thinking our toys are fun and all, a achievement, but ultimately toys in the grand scheme of things. And so far the galactic delegation has not readied for a first contact. As long as we throw bombs on each other I think many conscious aliens out there will circumvent our existence in the knowing we are here rather then meeting up. Hence the reason why we may not have contacted anybody as of yet. But who knows, maybe we have. After all, there might be a conspiracy, hehe, lol...

I don't think SETI will accomplish anything. If there is technological life beyond 100 lightyears they either should have contacted us by now.
Or they heard our radio signals, ignored us and thought...

Alien Mom vs Alien Son + Alien crowd.

Son: "They use radio signals, hey mom, should we bother to even look?"
Mom: "how do we transmit radio signals again? We haven't used this in 4 million years? Do you know son?"
Son: "Let's contact them"
Alien crowd: "Ecstatically laughing for a short moment then getting back to work."

Sad to say but that is how reality could be like. Sure it could be reversed, and we're the first and most developed species. I wouldn't be surprised if that picture was totally upside down to be honest.

I have a clear faith in the principle of infinity. When things being infinite each slightly altered version of humanity is somewhere different but existent. Also meaning their are infinite amount of species out there. Nothing to be really bothered with but good for the mind to extend that far a few minutes before going to sleep (or any time)

[Terwin]

47 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Mammals and birds are pretty smart, same with some other animals like octopuses. 
However being smart enough to open an door and be sapient is an major step. 
One issue is that high intelligence don't really pay of until its start getting human level if you are an smart mammal. 
You are smart enough to handle your environment even work in groups like an wolf pack but being twice as smart will not be an huge advantage. 
It worked out for humans as we become smart to deal with each other, the most mentally challenging things early humanoids encountered was other humanoids. 
This generated an selective pressure for intelligence, however it took long time before it paid of in increased survival. 
How common this would be, good guessing.

Now even if you have intelligence not sure you get an technical civilization, are you smart enough for one, that if the end result ended more stupid? You have an narrower birth channel or head is different. or you are an larger predator, think Kziin, planet could handle far fewer of them so much slower development. 
Or my pet theory, humans work very well in large groups, this make civilization possible, its rare and its not something who evolved somehow. No large long lasting civilizations. 

 

I am not too sure about the 'smarter to deal with other humans' at least not at first.  I saw a something recently saying that the evidence suggests humans may not have killed other humans much until the late paleolithic, and that is very recent in an evolutionary scale...

If you are an endurance hunter(as humans are theorized to be with our sparse fur, bipedal motion, sweating, etc), then every step towards intelligence that lets you out-smart your prey a little better, also saves calories from the hunt gives a competitive advantage(more calories available for procreation, even though more calories are also being spent on the bigger brain that lets you out-smart your prey better by planning further ahead for example).

Chasing an animal off a bluff that breaks it's legs is a lot less calorie intensive than chasing it until it can no longer stand, and it takes a fair bit of planning to dig a ditch before hand when there are no bluffs near-by.

[PB666]

9 hours ago, Terwin said:

I do not think that intelligent life is as hard to come by as it might seem.

Lots of species actively think about novel situations they encounter so as to classify them(food, threat, mate, etc).  

This means that the mechanisms of thought are well distributed, but not biologically advantageous for most species due to the energy costs.

If the mechanisms are well distributed, you just need an environment where frequent/constant thought becomes advantageous(such as out-smarting prey when endurance hunting as a way to save calories as a potential source of our own ongoing thought)

Once you are in a scenario where there is an evolutionary advantage for being smarter, intelligent thought  is only a matter of time and evolutionary pressure.(so long as you are not in a dead-end niche or run out your food supply)

MY judgement on the circumstance is that life on earth is compared to extremely rare run-a-way circumstance (like for instance a black hole, a quasar, . . . . . . . .). All the things you say can be explained within Earths run-a-way context.

Here it is. Life of the differentiated multicellular variety is very difficult to create; however, once it is created its akin to adding a catalyst to an epoxide reaction. . . . it goes and diversifies ever faster.

If you happen to live on the extremely rare worlds that have differentiated life for say a couple billion years then your experience is that form of life is common, however your perception is obscured by ignorance of the difficulty of getting say the first organism with a differentiated nervous system. To give an example. Here on earth the first life probably appeared a few hundred million years after the crust cooled, it appears to have been wiped, but it arose again 3.3 to 3.8 billion years ago. Somewhere 2 to 3 billion years later under near ideal conditions the first nervous system appeared. So on earth the opportunities for neobiogenesis were abundant and could have reoccurred on multiple occasions following a wipe, but the occasion of getting a nervous system requires 3 billion years of relatively celestial quiescence. SN here, mega-asteroid hit there, and it never happened.

We could all be sitting here chatting with each other  . . . . . .an 50 mile diameter asteroid traveling at 400,000 m/s hits . . . . . .no more Eucarotes [poof]. You looking out from another star scarcely noticed our loss, you might ponder how a bluish transition on an orange star turned brownish, spectragraphic information shows a large amount of salty water vapor orbiting our sun.

The other thing  is that many many species that could have evolved to form nervous systems simply went extinct before they had a chance.

6 hours ago, Slam_Jones said:

I firmly believe that life exists outside of our solar system, somewhere in the universe.

I also feel like it's probably just single-cell organisms for the most part.  I sincerely doubt that there are "little green men" of any variety out there, though.

Uh, you got it, Voyager 1 and 2.

1. No longer in our solar system.
2. Little bacterial spores dot their little metal surfaces.

[Slam_Jones]

2 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Uh, you got it, Voyager 1 and 2.

1. No longer in our solar system.
2. Little bacterial spores dot their little metal surfaces.

Well I can't say you're wrong... 

I guess my refined answer is, then: non-Earth-based or -derived life.  Extra-terrestrial, if you will.  Life that did not originate on Earth, or spawned from any organism from Earth.  Or carried about any human-made spacecraft, inadvertently or otherwise.

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

Uh, you got it, Voyager 1 and 2.

1. No longer in our solar system.
2. Little bacterial spores dot their little metal surfaces.

Earth life has appeared ~4 bln years ago.
Milky Way moves towards Great Attractor at speed of ~550 km/s.
(550*10³ * 4*10⁹ * 86400 * 365.2422) / (3*10⁸ * 86400 * 365.2422) =550*10³ * 4*10⁹ / 3*10⁸ ~= 7 mln l.y.

Spores of the terrestrial lifeforms reach the upper atmosphere and probably even leave it from time to time on major impact events (asteroids, volcanoes etc).
So, we can be sure that there is a trail made of terrestrial life (dead or alive) about 7 mln l.y. long in the direction opposite to Great Attractor.

The Solar System has already done ~4000/200 = 20 turns around the Milky Way center, so we can presume a toroidal cloud of the Earth , making this trail ~50000 l.y. thick.

Just to compare. Space flights are lasting since 1961, i.e. about 56 years.
Sun orbital speed ~220 km/s.
(220*10³ * 56* 86400 * 365.2422) / (3*10⁸ * 86400 * 365.2422) =220*10³ * 56 / 3*10⁸ ~= 0.04 l.y ~=2500 AU.
Human biological substances form a 0.04 l.y. (2500 AU) trail in the same direction.

(Great Attractor is placed near Triangulum Australe and Norma constellations.
So, our biotrail is in the opposite direction).

Edited November 2, 2017 by kerbiloid

[NSEP]

11 hours ago, Slam_Jones said:

I also feel like it's probably just single-cell organisms for the most part.  I sincerely doubt that there are "little green men" of any variety out there, though.

^^This^^

In order to invent space travel you must have thumbs, dry skin, intelligence, and much more. I think the solution of the Fermi Paradox is that we are weirdos doing crazy stuff, and everyone else is doing their own weird crazy stuff.

[Cassel]

On 11/1/2017 at 1:26 AM, regex said:

 

The Fermi Paradox has tons of solutions. Hell, we might just be one of the younger races in the universe.

Or the first intelligent creatures in entire universe, because someone has to be first.

[KerikBalm]

Yes to life, No to very common intelligent life in our galaxy. No to intelligent life in our galaxy capable of interstellar travel at speeds of a significant fraction of the speed of light.

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

Or the first intelligent creatures in entire universe, because someone has to be first.

As the star formation gets slower, and the Earth is near the very end of her biological history (just 100..500 mln yrs left, while 3500..4000 is already spent), sounds like "... and the last".

But probably we can presume that any MilkyWay-class galaxy has 2..3 eden oases like ours, 1000 ly around the Sun, far from the star formation regions, but enough close to the center to have heavy metals.
And there are about 2 trillion visible galaxies.
So, probably there should be several hundreds, maybe thousands of alternative humanities in visible part of the Universe, and the question is: how far.

As generally, we should be interested only in the nearest ones (just to look at them before they disappear in sedimental layers), probably several nearest MilkyWay-class galaxies make sense for us.
So, probably we can hope to meet several humanities, maybe even 1-2 near us.
Maybe, even not too disgusting.

Edited November 2, 2017 by kerbiloid

[FleshJeb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation