The Fermi Paradox and Alien Spaceships on Earth.

[bluecoconuts]

The idea of life out there is interesting to me, obviously so since that was a large part of my dissertation, searching for habitable planets that could harbor life.

By pure numbers alone, I cannot imagine that we are the only life in the entire universe. Even if we estimate on the low end, there are likely over 20 sextillion potentially habitable planets in the known universe (meaning terrestrial planets in the goldilocks zone of their host star(s)) so odds are something has evolved.

Now is that life intelligent or even hyper intelligent? Who knows? That is really jumping down a number of different rabbit holes.

 

[1maGoh]

The idea of life out there is interesting to me, obviously so since that was a large part of my dissertation, searching for habitable planets that could harbor life.

By pure numbers alone, I cannot imagine that we are the only life in the entire universe. Even if we estimate on the low end, there are likely over 20 sextillion potentially habitable planets in the known universe (meaning terrestrial planets in the goldilocks zone of their host star(s)) so odds are something has evolved.

Now is that life intelligent or even hyper intelligent? Who knows? That is really jumping down a number of different rabbit holes.

Even if there was intelligent life out there, do we have the ability to detect a civilization like ours? The only "we may have detected life!" stories I've ever seen have been about space super structures that encapsulate an entire star or planet. I don't believe we could detect anything short of that, right? It's not like we'll be able to listen in on alien cell phone conversations (as an example, I know they probably wouldn't have cell phones) to confirm alien life.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

Perhaps it is all around us and we have yet to realize it.

It's not faith.

Intelligent life from outer space has to be a tangible thing.

Show me the proof that it exists. The fact that nobody has any proof proves of intelligent life outside of our own world is proof of it's non-existent. The only place it exists is in the imagination.

Unless you are suggesting Intelligent Life (or Hyper intelligent whatever that is) is somehow God, then suggesting aliens are somehow an invisible presence is again the absence of proof.

 

[Loyal]

I think saying there's a lack of evidence that intelligent life is anywhere other than Earth is overdoing it. We couldn't possibly get any evidence, so of course we lack evidence. Lacking evidence isn't indicative of anything because there isn't another option.

Think about it this way. Let's say we were extraterrestrials on a habitable planet far away from here at roughly the same technological development. Could we detect Earth and confirm intelligent life? Probably not. Does the inability to detect Earth mean that Earth and its inhabitants don't exist? No.

There is no paradox.

But since we do not run on supposition, as much a I agree with you that there is probably life on other planets (could be microorganisms or TRexes), we don't have measurable proof of that. Scientific methid and all

 

[1maGoh]

But since we do not run on supposition, as much a I agree with you that there is probably life on other planets (could be microorganisms or TRexes), we don't have measurable proof of that. Scientific methid and all

My point was simply that not having proof doesn't prove anything. It simply means we don't know.

Saying, "We have no proof either way therefore it doesn't exist." Is inaccurate.

Saying, "We have no proof either way therefore we can't say anything definitively." Is incredibly unhelpful to the conversation but most accurate.

In order for there to be a paradox, you'd have to say the first statement because the second statement doesn't lead to a paradox. It just leads to, "Uh maybe. I don't know. The math checks out but how would we know?" That's not a paradox, that's lack of info.

 

[Loyal]

My point was simply that not having proof doesn't prove anything. It simply means we don't know.

Saying, "We have no proof either way therefore it doesn't exist." Is inaccurate.

Saying, "We have no proof either way therefore we can't say anything definitively." Is incredibly unhelpful to the conversation but most accurate.

In order for there to be a paradox, you'd have to say the first statement because the second statement doesn't lead to a paradox. It just leads to, "Uh maybe. I don't know. The math checks out but how would we know?" That's not a paradox, that's lack of info.

Actually, weare saying there is no Verifiable proof that something exists, or doesn't exist. Can you disagree with that?

 

[Dieter the Brock]

A winner of this year's Nobel prize in physics is convinced we'll detect alien life in 100 years. Here are 13 reasons why we haven't made contact yet.

Redirect Notice

Astrophysicist Michael Hart explored this question formally in a 1975 paper; he argued that there had been plenty of time for intelligent life to colonize the Milky Way in the 13.8 billion years since the galaxy formed. Since nobody on Earth had heard anything, Hart concluded, there must be no other advanced civilizations in our galaxy.
More recently, a 2018 Oxford University studysuggested that there's a roughly two-in-five chance that we're alone in our galaxy and a one-in-three chance that we're alone in the entire cosmos.
But the more astronomers learn about conditions that make a planet suitable for life, the more it seems our galaxy could be more hospitable to life than previously thought.

 

[coconut]

A winner of this year's Nobel prize in physics is convinced we'll detect alien life in 100 years. Here are 13 reasons why we haven't made contact yet.

Redirect Notice

Astrophysicist Michael Hart explored this question formally in a 1975 paper; he argued that there had been plenty of time for intelligent life to colonize the Milky Way in the 13.8 billion years since the galaxy formed. Since nobody on Earth had heard anything, Hart concluded, there must be no other advanced civilizations in our galaxy.
More recently, a 2018 Oxford University studysuggested that there's a roughly two-in-five chance that we're alone in our galaxy and a one-in-three chance that we're alone in the entire cosmos.
But the more astronomers learn about conditions that make a planet suitable for life, the more it seems our galaxy could be more hospitable to life than previously thought.

The only hard-ish number mentioned is the 13.8 billion years. Even that is based upon what we think we know. The other numbers have no basis in fact. Assuming man evolved on earth over a 1-2 million years time there would be ample opportunity within a 13.8 billion year span for life similar to that on earth to have evolved and died out numerous times perhaps even on the same planets. That is just life similar to that on earth. It is arrogant to think that is the only "intelligent" life possible. Plus who is to say intelligent alien life would want to make our acquaintance anyway?

 

[1maGoh]

Actually, weare saying there is no Verifiable proof that something exists, or doesn't exist. Can you disagree with that?

No. I can't disagree because that's what I'm saying. We have no proof either way, so the lack of proof means nothing. Maybe there is proof somewhere but we haven't found it. Maybe there isn't and we'll never find it. We don't know. That isn't at odds with the fact that mathematically it's really likely that there is other life. It's neutral to that fact. So no paradox.

For clarity, the definition of paradox:

a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

But there's nothing absurd or self-contradictory about saying that some fact is mathematically likely to be true but we have no way to prove it so we don't actually know. That's exactly how facts work before we can prove them.

If we had piles of evidence that aliens don't exist anywhere in the universe, but it's mathematically likely that they do, that would be a paradox.

 

[Loyal]

No. I can't disagree because that's what I'm saying. We have no proof either way, so the lack of proof means nothing. Maybe there is proof somewhere but we haven't found it. Maybe there isn't and we'll never find it. We don't know. That isn't at odds with the fact that mathematically it's really likely that there is other life. It's neutral to that fact. So no paradox.

For clarity, the definition of paradox:

a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

But there's nothing absurd or self-contradictory about saying that some fact is mathematically likely to be true but we have no way to prove it so we don't actually know. That's exactly how facts work before we can prove them.

If we had piles of evidence that aliens don't exist anywhere in the universe, but it's mathematically likely that they do, that would be a paradox.

Ok, forget the term, fermi paradox, because we both agree that life most likely exists out there. Here are my words again:

That is the base for me.
1. Other species may have arisen on Earth and became just as advanced as we are now, but one of the several extinction events utterly destroyed any evidence of them if so. The same is most likely true for any planet in any galaxy in existence.
2. Some planets, which includes Earth, may have had intelligent life arise that were not quite advanced before getting destroyed, or destroying themselves.
3. What if an Alien civilization arose and spread throughout the Universe, and then died out 7 billion years ago (2.5 billion years before the Earth was formed). Remember, we may not exist 100 years from now with all of the nukes on Earth. A 44,000 year window in 13 + billion years, means that the rarity of an Alien race being intelligent enough to overcome the physics of space travel AND to contact us at the right geological time has got to be astronomically against that possibility.
-------------------
How likely are spaceships flying around the earth?

 

[1maGoh]

Ok, forget the term, fermi paradox, because we both agree that life most likely exists out there. Here are my words again:

That is the base for me.
1. Other species may have arisen on Earth and became just as advanced as we are now, but one of the several extinction events utterly destroyed any evidence of them if so. The same is most likely true for any planet in any galaxy in existence.
2. Some planets, which includes Earth, may have had intelligent life arise that were not quite advanced before getting destroyed, or destroying themselves.
3. What if an Alien civilization arose and spread throughout the Universe, and then died out 7 billion years ago (2.5 billion years before the Earth was formed). Remember, we may not exist 100 years from now with all of the nukes on Earth. A 44,000 year window in 13 + billion years, means that the rarity of an Alien race being intelligent enough to overcome the physics of space travel AND to contact us at the right geological time has got to be astronomically against that possibility.
-------------------
How likely are spaceships flying around the earth?

Oh. Not very. The odds are (wait for it...) astronomical.

 

[Q729]

Sucks that the distance between everything is too vast to get any real proof of anything. Wouldn't that be something freaky if one of these civilizations sent back one of the Voyager or Pioneer probes all mangled up with the human drawings vandalized effectively saying, "Get the fuck away. Nevermind, we're coming for you."
Fascinating shit, fellas. Keep it coming.

 

[norcalramfan]

The only question I have really ever had is. If we are being visited or observed by this super advanced alien culture. Why do they keep crashing into our planet? I mean screw "Take me to your leader." Who is gonna pay for my fence?

Thank-you! They traverse the vastness of space then forget how to fly their machines....right.

 

[Farr Be It]

Great topic guys. I am enjoying everyone’s input. I tend to agree with @Dieter the Brock about life outside of our earth. And it sure helps me appreciate the perfect design of our planet.

The rest of the Milky Way and known universe and is made up of icy, burning hot, toxic, and just plain uninhabitable planetary bodies. And it all points back to the uniqueness of earth.

• The composition of our atmosphere is perfect
• The placement and rotation of earth is perfect. And consistent
• The relative distance to the sun is perfect. And the seasonal clock. Unbelievable
• The relative distance of our moon and gravitational pull to control the oceans tides- feeding oxygen to the sea animals. But just a bit closer and we would have constant life threatening tidal waves
• Perfect, life-giving CO2 and H2O, soil for growing, seeds that grow into food and plants and trees for shade, and fruit and wood to build
• So much more. Amazing. None of that crap on Mars. It’s almost like it was designed this way.
  

 

[Akrasian]

Great topic guys. I am enjoying everyone’s input. I tend to agree with @Dieter the Brock about life outside of our earth. And it sure helps me appreciate the perfect design of our planet.

The rest of the Milky Way and known universe and is made up of icy, burning hot, toxic, and just plain uninhabitable planetary bodies. And it all points back to the uniqueness of earth.

• The composition of our atmosphere is perfect
• The placement and rotation of earth is perfect. And consistent
• The relative distance to the sun is perfect. And the seasonal clock. Unbelievable
• The relative distance of our moon and gravitational pull to control the oceans tides- feeding oxygen to the sea animals. But just a bit closer and we would have constant life threatening tidal waves
• Perfect, life-giving CO2 and H2O, soil for growing, seeds that grow into food and plants and trees for shade, and fruit and wood to build
• So much more. Amazing. None of that crap on Mars. It’s almost like it was designed this way.

Well, first, the most realistic estimates are that there are literally billions of planets in the Milky Way in the Goldilocks zone. Not all of those inhabitable, of course.

Earth's atmosphere has changed thanks to life - changed greatly. So saying that the composition of our atmosphere is perfect is meaningless. The sort of life that has evolved on Sol has affected the atmosphere.

The placement and rotation of earth is ignoring that we are within the Goldilocks zone where Sol type life can develop. Consistency is important, of course - but since there are likely billions of planets within Goldilocks zones in our galaxy, that does not seem that unlikely. Note that the planets rotating around Sol mostly have consistent rotations.

The moon has helped. Not necessarily necessary, but helpful. Since all the reasonably large planets in our solar system have regular lunar orbits around them, I'm not sure that's all that rare in the galaxy.

Since the exact balance of needed CO2 and water is tied into the nature of life, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make that Earth has the balance needed for life on Earth. FWIW, different areas of Earth have different balances of things - try having life from the Amazon exist in the Sahara - they need differing amounts of things like water. Life fills whatever niches are available - Terrestrial life for instance exists in the oxygen poor thermal vents on the ocean floors. Life adapts.

FWIW, there is a lot of speculation that life did exist on Mars (and still may) but that most died out as the volcanic vents cooled off, so there was much less energy to support life.

 

[Farr Be It]

Well, first, the most realistic estimates are that there are literally billions of planets in the Milky Way in the Goldilocks zone. Not all of those inhabitable, of course.

Of course. Actually just one that is inhabitable. Earth.

Earth's atmosphere has changed thanks to life - changed greatly. So saying that the composition of our atmosphere is perfect is meaningless

Not meaningless really. And this is a chicken and egg thing. Though the atmosphere changes in small ways, the balance of Nitrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, etc. required to sustain life has always essentially been in place. Life thrives because of it. But life did not create the atmosphere.

The placement and rotation of earth is ignoring that we are within the Goldilocks zone where Sol type life can develop. Consistency is important, of course - but since there are likely billions of planets within Goldilocks zones in our galaxy, that does not seem that unlikely. Note that the planets rotating around Sol mostly have consistent rotations.

True. And note also that some planets and moons rotate in the opposite direction, a phenomenon hard to fit into the Big Bang theory of rotation of formed planets from an explosion.

The moon has helped. Not necessarily necessary, but helpful. Since all the reasonably large planets in our solar system have regular lunar orbits around them, I'm not sure that's all that rare in the galaxy.

Lunar orbits are not all that rare. What IS rare, is that our planet has H20 that covers roughly 70% of the surface (or exists at all!) and would be the biggest stagnant pond were it not for the gravitational pull of the moon. Life in the oceans would not thrive, or be able to exist.
Also, the moon is ebbing away from the earth slowly at a consistent rate. (Id have to look Up the rate) and if the earth were millions of years old, the moon would have been too close to earth a few Hundred thousand years ago, and creating constant tidal waves.

Since the exact balance of needed CO2 and water is tied into the nature of life, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make that Earth has the balance needed for life on Earth.

Just exactly that. Again, this is a chicken/egg thing. Forgive me if I misunderstand you. Are you saying life came first, then the elements? The elements unique to earth were the groundwork for life to exist/thrive.

FWIW, there is a lot of speculation that life did exist on Mars (and still may) but that most died out as the volcanic vents cooled off, so there was much less energy to support life.

I understand. I’ve read much of the speculation. Usually it starts with a grand headline, “Life may have been found on Mars!” Or something, then you read deeper in the article and it is more speculative, and nothing comes of it.

I am all for the exploration and continues study of the multiverse. And I respect your curiosity and perspective.

But I do believe, as to life, this planet is it. And it is wonderful and plenty and I am in awe.

 

[Selassie I]

@LoyalRam

The Fermi Paradox and Alien Spaceships on Earth really aren't connected at all.

Here's a short clip that I like concerning alien spaceships on Earth...

 

[Dieter the Brock]

@LoyalRam

The Fermi Paradox and Alien Spaceships on Earth really aren't connected at all.

Here's a short clip that I like concerning alien spaceships on Earth...

I've seen that - when I was a freshman in high school. It was awesome

We went down to Villahermosa Tabasco and then Palenque. It was a really cool drive through the jungle for miles and miles. There would be these long stretches on hillie highway and up ahead a few of the rises you'd see ten to twenty huge iguanas basking on the blacktop, but right as you come up to see them on the next rise they were all gone. And this went on for miles. Pretty cool.

In Palenque, the entire place was an observatory. They had one actually that was way more impressive than the pyramid of encryption - which was cool as well with this large hieroglyph wall -- I am curious what it says now that I think about it. There was a really clean ball field too, where they kick the ball through the hoops game - the one that ended with the winning team getting sacrificed.

To see the tomb you have to go down this tunnel and it get's really hot, like sweltering, then there is this jade jaguar bench. The bench stays with me more than he tomb.

I heard the tour guide mention he was in a rocketship and as a kid, I was all into that idea. This idea is nothing new. The tour guide in 1986 was saying it was a rocketship. I don't know if they say that cause it's what tourists want to hear, or if he was saying it cause that's what they believe. I would like to go back and actually ask a Mayan person. They are still down there. Some villages speak only Mayan, or at least they did back in the mid-'80s.

That trip was awesome. My mom is Mexican so it was cool seeing all these relatives I never knew existed. The other thing was to see how warm and inviting they were considering my own home life was a horrible junior-Machevillian blood bath of sorts. Instead, over there were these cool loving families, some of whom had dirt floors, and swept them - serving the best food ever, and welcoming me in. It was a great experience and why to this day I try and practice humility above all else.

One funny story back then was, the Peso had tanked at that time and like one buck got you a thousand pesos or something crazy. So we get down to these remote jungle locals like Uxmal and the vendors are charging like 60 pesos for a Coke. that broke down to like 10 cents or something crazy. SO we are just living the high life and saving all this cash on junk food that would normally cost us our entire allowance. Anyway, our trip eventually took us to Cancun and that was epic, but it was full-on touristy so long story longer - me and my brother go to get a Coke and they want 120 Pesos, and we looked at each other and were like "no way, what a rip off, we've been paying 60 pesos all day long." So we walked away without it dawning on us that the Coke was still only 25 cents. we had lost all sense of anything. Anyway, I got sucked into that life pretty easily.

But yeah. I would totally hit up Yucatan. It's awesome. My favorite was Tulum. There were these diver guys above the doors that tripped me out.

* doesn't that German host from this clip sounds like a bad guy from one of the Indiana Jones flicks?

 

[Selassie I]

This very recent Rogan interview with the Naval pilot does touch on both of your OP topics though. There's bad language so NSFW. Plus... I'm still not very comfortable with the bearded guy Jeremy Corbell who's sitting with the pilot. I don't trust him.

But listening to the pilot talk about this is really something...

 

[coconut]

* doesn't that German host from this clip sounds like a bad guy from one of the Indiana Jones flicks?

That's Erich Von Daniken and he's Swiss.