The Fermi Paradox and Alien Spaceships on Earth.

[Farr Be It]

Eh, changed my mind. I'm back in. I'll be a good boy.
Someone made a comment that it would be arrogant to think that we are the only planet with life forms in all the of space. I would just call it "Observant", not arrogant. It is quite humbling, actually. Don't you think?

It's possible that species on a planet could survive eating coal and drinking pure ammonia of that's how they evolved. After all here on our planet species breathe air but can't live in water, species that can live in water but not in the air and even a few that can do both.

Yes but life forms that are aquatic, or semi-aquatic animals like hippos, penguins, gators, etc. still thrive with the elements unique to earth. None of them evolved, by the way. No proof of that. The DNA is unique to each. Small mutations and adaptations are not the same thing as one life form becoming another. That has never been shown to happen.

There's an estimated 40 billion habitable planets in the Galaxy and 19 sextillion (19 followed by 21 zeros) habitable planets in the observable universe.

Wow. How did you guys come up with this estimation? What atmospheric qualities were there in these planets? - I guess you guys call it the "Goldilocks" zone. The way I see it Goldilocks chose one chair, one bed, one bowl of porridge. Earth is just right.

Panspermia is such a stretch. Even if some of the elements necessary for life exist in these planets, and it assumes the still unexplained origin assumed for life on earth. From dust and chemicals came complicated life forms. It is not explainable, or even credible from any scientific standpoint, and violates the first law of thermodynamics: this law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be changed in form or function, and the second law that: when two systems interact, they will always tend towards a greater total entropy as they reach a state of mutual thermodynamic equilibrium.

The evidence for entropy exists in the cellular structure, (Our ancestors DNA was stronger than ours. Each generation it gets a bit worse) in the stars and planets (see: the loss of mass in our sun, loss of our magnetic and gravitational force over time, in measurable amounts)

How are these things factored into the "Billions" of years theories. They have to be accounted for.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

Eh, changed my mind. I'm back in. I'll be a good boy.
Someone made a comment that it would be arrogant to think that we are the only planet with life forms in all the of space. I would just call it "Observant", not arrogant. It is quite humbling, actually. Don't you think?

Yes but life forms that are aquatic, or semi-aquatic animals like hippos, penguins, gators, etc. still thrive with the elements unique to earth. None of them evolved, by the way. No proof of that. The DNA is unique to each. Small mutations and adaptations are not the same thing as one life form becoming another. That has never been shown to happen.


Wow. How did you guys come up with this estimation? What atmospheric qualities were there in these planets? - I guess you guys call it the "Goldilocks" zone. The way I see it Goldilocks chose one chair, one bed, one bowl of porridge. Earth is just right.

Panspermia is such a stretch. Even if some of the elements necessary for life exist in these planets, and it assumes the still unexplained origin assumed for life on earth. From dust and chemicals came complicated life forms. It is not explainable, or even credible from any scientific standpoint, and violates the first law of thermodynamics: this law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be changed in form or function, and the second law that: when two systems interact, they will always tend towards a greater total entropy as they reach a state of mutual thermodynamic equilibrium.

The evidence for entropy exists in the cellular structure, (Our ancestors DNA was stronger than ours. Each generation it gets a bit worse) in the stars and planets (see: the loss of mass in our sun, loss of our magnetic and gravitational force over time, in measurable amounts)

How are these things factored into the "Billions" of years theories. They have to be accounted for.

 

[Farr Be It]

View attachment 33498

New part time job, Dieter?

I guess that beats your last response. Why the hate? It is a viable scientific view. You like consensus. Fine. Anything in there make you curious? Or does it all look clown-car in your world? Just mockery?

Any response of substance? Or just animal balloons?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Wow. How did you guys come up with this estimation? What atmospheric qualities were there in these planets? - I guess you guys call it the "Goldilocks" zone. The way I see it Goldilocks chose one chair, one bed, one bowl of porridge. Earth is just right.

Panspermia is such a stretch. Even if some of the elements necessary for life exist in these planets, and it assumes the still unexplained origin assumed for life on earth. From dust and chemicals came complicated life forms. It is not explainable, or even credible from any scientific standpoint, and violates the first law of thermodynamics: this law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be changed in form or function, and the second law that: when two systems interact, they will always tend towards a greater total entropy as they reach a state of mutual thermodynamic equilibrium.

The evidence for entropy exists in the cellular structure, (Our ancestors DNA was stronger than ours. Each generation it gets a bit worse) in the stars and planets (see: the loss of mass in our sun, loss of our magnetic and gravitational force over time, in measurable amounts)

How are these things factored into the "Billions" of years theories. They have to be accounted for.

Basically we make that estimation based on what we have observed and then we go from there. We've found that on average there are at least one planet per star and roughly 20% of stars have an Earth sized planet in the host star's habitable zone. Goldilocks zone means it's in that "just right" zone already, not too far, not too close. There's also potential for life among moons of other planets, such as gas giants.

Panspermia is just a guess about how life could possibly spread among the cosmos but that's not what I'm getting at here. Life can come in many ways and it's rather adaptable. It's easily possible that millions of worlds were able to harbor microscopic life at one point that failed to grow beyond that. The second law of thermodynamics also doesn't disprove anything in terms of life growing and evolving, if anything it actually does the opposite. As particles clump into atoms and begin to take in things such as heat from surrounding water, one would expect them to eventually form into shapes that better work with the surrounding electromagnetic, chemical, and mechanical sources in their environment. As time goes on it can get to a point where the best way to dissipate the energy taken in is to make copies of yourself, and thus it begins. The more complex something becomes the more efficient it becomes at taking and dispersing energy. Environmental factors would lead to a wider variety of life, but it primarily could come from that desire to adapt to becoming better at dissipating energy. Obviously there is still a lot of researching going into these questions, as the answer still has plenty of unknowns, but that's how science is.

 

[1maGoh]

Basically we make that estimation based on what we have observed and then we go from there. We've found that on average there are at least one planet per star and roughly 20% of stars have an Earth sized planet in the host star's habitable zone. Goldilocks zone means it's in that "just right" zone already, not too far, not too close. There's also potential for life among moons of other planets, such as gas giants.

Panspermia is just a guess about how life could possibly spread among the cosmos but that's not what I'm getting at here. Life can come in many ways and it's rather adaptable. It's easily possible that millions of worlds were able to harbor microscopic life at one point that failed to grow beyond that. The second law of thermodynamics also doesn't disprove anything in terms of life growing and evolving, if anything it actually does the opposite. As particles clump into atoms and begin to take in things such as heat from surrounding water, one would expect them to eventually form into shapes that better work with the surrounding electromagnetic, chemical, and mechanical sources in their environment. As time goes on it can get to a point where the best way to dissipate the energy taken in is to make copies of yourself, and thus it begins. The more complex something becomes the more efficient it becomes at taking and dispersing energy. Environmental factors would lead to a wider variety of life, but it primarily could come from that desire to adapt to becoming better at dissipating energy. Obviously there is still a lot of researching going into these questions, as the answer still has plenty of unknowns, but that's how science is.

I am slightly confused and request clarification on one thing. You talk about particles clumping together and taking in energy, then talk about the best way to dissipate that energy being making copies of "yourself" and a "desire to adapt".

So the question: if we're talking about particles, where's the desire coming from? Aren't clumps of particles just inanimate objects and unable to have desire or view themselves as a being/cohesive unit? Maybe I'm taking you too literally.

 

[Loyal]

You're arguing against something I didn't even say to the point I'm not even sure how you interpreted my comment. Gravity is not a law, it's a theory, and we haven't explored more than a tiny fraction of our Galaxy so we have no idea what else is out there. We also make new discoveries all the time and we have many wild ideas about what we could potentially develop as we gain new understandings, so what may seem impossible now could very well become elementary physics in the future.

I'm sorry if you disagree with the idea that we still have a lot to learn about science and our universe around us as a whole, but we really do. We still have so much to learn about this little rock we're stuck on right now, the only reason why I'm looking up and not down is because I don't have faith in humanity to get their shit together so I'm trying to find that planet B before it's too late. There's only a finite time Earth is habitable, and I for one would like to imagine that Humanity wont die with Earth.... Especially because that's much closer than people think, a billion years is just the amount of time left before the oceans are boiled away, we'll be plenty dead before that time. Not to mention all the other ways that we can be killed from something from outside our planet.

Well, you just inferred something that I didn't say. I didn't say that there would be no improvements to science, I said there will probably be nothing the undermines scientific knowledge as we know it today, which you seem to say will happen. Right now, there is no religious authority that says the universe revolves around the earth. Scientists don't get destroyed professionally (or worse) for offering opinions opposite of the Church.

We use the scientific method and therefore society has the benefit of hearing the results of research where the most significant bias used to prevent sigificant discoveries. To me, only the individual researcher's bias and worldview might skew results, and much less from outside religious influence which skewed results in the past, and so... That's why I don't think science will battle cherished ideas coming from Church authority any longer, which always was probably the most significant factor to obstructiing different theories by threat of excommunication and death.

As for humanity getting its shit together before the next meteor strikes the Earth, well, relax. If it does hit then we won't suffer too much, and we know that no matter what precieved disaster occurs, the earth will most likely regenerate itself with new lifeforms and that's the Earth's past several times over. Also, think how fast our technology has advanced in the last 100 years. We are advancing so fast in such a small amount of time and will be prepared for a lot of things that we fear today.

 

[Loyal]

My thinking about this subject is similar. The universe is endless. You can travel trillions of miles and still not come to an end. The odds of there being planets that can sustain life somewhere are probably very good. But its not like we will ever know.

I believe if aliens really do visit us, with our technology we woulda known for sure by now. So call me skeptical unless there is irrefutable proof. Not "Look at those lights!" or "The government is covering it up!" We're not the only government on earth. I seriously doubt every country on earth has a secret pact not to reveal any evidence of aliens here.

The universe is expanding at the speed of light, outward from the Big Bang. Yep, no way we will ever see anything on the opposite side, except with telescopes. Telescopes just allow us to see distant galactic history...

 

[XXXIVwin]

Someone made a comment that it would be arrogant to think that we are the only planet with life forms in all the of space. I would just call it "Observant", not arrogant.

Remind me how mankind has “observed” the lack of life forms elsewhere?

Naturally, Farr, I disagree strongly with every theory you have suggested in this thread. (And I mean that in the friendliest, most civil way I can manage). But your use of the word “observant” seems particularly indefensible.

By definition, we have not been able to “observe” other planets for signs of life in any of the trillions and trillions of other galaxies... heck, we can barely even make educated guesses about possible life on our nearest planetary neighbor, Mars.

One can hold the belief that life exists ONLY on planet Earth, and nowhere else in the unimaginably vast universe. But to say this belief is supported by “observation” seems inherently false.

If you explore less than one trillion-trillion-trillionth of an area, doesn’t it seem a little presumptuous to declare, “Yup, I’ve seen enough, nothing to be found here!”

 

[bluecoconuts]

I am slightly confused and request clarification on one thing. You talk about particles clumping together and taking in energy, then talk about the best way to dissipate that energy being making copies of "yourself" and a "desire to adapt".

So the question: if we're talking about particles, where's the desire coming from? Aren't clumps of particles just inanimate objects and unable to have desire or view themselves as a being/cohesive unit? Maybe I'm taking you too literally.

They're not living, it's not like a thought or anything, it's just how they act in order to become stable. Atoms and particles "want" to become stable as well, and while it's not some sort of awareness, it is almost like a programming because it's rather consistent in how they want to bond. I was overly simplifying it a little because it's rather complex and I'm not a chemist nor an evolutionary biologist, and for simplicity's sake given this is an internet board. The particles that make up our atoms aren't any different from other particles, but as they bond together for their stability, and form more complex things like atoms and molecules, eventually if the conditions are right, it can grow into a more complex form that can react more to its surroundings, such as moving closer to the surface of the water to catch more sunlight, which gives it more energy and thus the cycle escalates.

I know it's not an uber satisfying answer, but we simply just don't know every little detail yet, still plenty of research going in.

Well, you just inferred something that I didn't say. I didn't say that there would be no improvements to science, I said there will probably be nothing the undermines scientific knowledge as we know it today, which you seem to say will happen. Right now, there is no religious authority that says the universe revolves around the earth. Scientists don't get destroyed professionally (or worse) for offering opinions opposite of the Church.

We use the scientific method and therefore society has the benefit of hearing the results of research where the most significant bias used to prevent sigificant discoveries. To me, only the individual researcher's bias and worldview might skew results, and much less from outside religious influence which skewed results in the past, and so... That's why I don't think science will battle cherished ideas coming from Church authority any longer, which always was probably the most significant factor to obstructiing different theories by threat of excommunication and death.

As for humanity getting its shit together before the next meteor strikes the Earth, well, relax. If it does hit then we won't suffer too much, and we know that no matter what precieved disaster occurs, the earth will most likely regenerate itself with new lifeforms and that's the Earth's past several times over. Also, think how fast our technology has advanced in the last 100 years. We are advancing so fast in such a small amount of time and will be prepared for a lot of things that we fear today.

We make new discoveries that can potentially change our understanding of science all the time, even now we're finding discoveries that don't mesh with our Lambda-CDM model and the Hubble Constant isn't so constant after all. I'm also not all that worried about some asteroid hitting Earth, that's among the least of my concerns, there are far worse objects out there, and far more pressing issues down here that we should be concerned about before asteroids. We're not advancing nearly as fast as we could be, especially with so little funding and attention be given to the topic.

As for everything else, I'm not looking to get roped into any religious or church vs science debate so I'm just going to take my exit from the ring here.

 

[Loyal]

They're not living, it's not like a thought or anything, it's just how they act in order to become stable. Atoms and particles "want" to become stable as well, and while it's not some sort of awareness, it is almost like a programming because it's rather consistent in how they want to bond. I was overly simplifying it a little because it's rather complex and I'm not a chemist nor an evolutionary biologist, and for simplicity's sake given this is an internet board. The particles that make up our atoms aren't any different from other particles, but as they bond together for their stability, and form more complex things like atoms and molecules, eventually if the conditions are right, it can grow into a more complex form that can react more to its surroundings, such as moving closer to the surface of the water to catch more sunlight, which gives it more energy and thus the cycle escalates.

I know it's not an uber satisfying answer, but we simply just don't know every little detail yet, still plenty of research going in.



We make new discoveries that can potentially change our understanding of science all the time, even now we're finding discoveries that don't mesh with our Lambda-CDM model and the Hubble Constant isn't so constant after all. I'm also not all that worried about some asteroid hitting Earth, that's among the least of my concerns, there are far worse objects out there, and far more pressing issues down here that we should be concerned about before asteroids. We're not advancing nearly as fast as we could be, especially with so little funding and attention be given to the topic.

As for everything else, I'm not looking to get roped into any religious or church vs science debate so I'm just going to take my exit from the ring here.

What I mentioned as far as 15th,1th, 17th century rulings from the holy see against scientific discovery, little to no christians would support in the 21st century. It's just history that they were ignorant back then, which just means not knowing something.
As for the various other dangers to civilization, I sidestepped those as well, because religious people are not the only ones who skew science by their faith. I will bow out on this one as well. Peace.

 

[ozarkram]

 

[LesBaker]

Basically we make that estimation based on what we have observed and then we go from there. We've found that on average there are at least one planet per star and roughly 20% of stars have an Earth sized planet in the host star's habitable zone. Goldilocks zone means it's in that "just right" zone already, not too far, not too close. There's also potential for life among moons of other planets, such as gas giants.

Panspermia is just a guess about how life could possibly spread among the cosmos but that's not what I'm getting at here. Life can come in many ways and it's rather adaptable. It's easily possible that millions of worlds were able to harbor microscopic life at one point that failed to grow beyond that. The second law of thermodynamics also doesn't disprove anything in terms of life growing and evolving, if anything it actually does the opposite. As particles clump into atoms and begin to take in things such as heat from surrounding water, one would expect them to eventually form into shapes that better work with the surrounding electromagnetic, chemical, and mechanical sources in their environment. As time goes on it can get to a point where the best way to dissipate the energy taken in is to make copies of yourself, and thus it begins. The more complex something becomes the more efficient it becomes at taking and dispersing energy. Environmental factors would lead to a wider variety of life, but it primarily could come from that desire to adapt to becoming better at dissipating energy. Obviously there is still a lot of researching going into these questions, as the answer still has plenty of unknowns, but that's how science is.

Did anyone else read this and think



Or was it just me?

 

[1maGoh]

They're not living, it's not like a thought or anything, it's just how they act in order to become stable. Atoms and particles "want" to become stable as well, and while it's not some sort of awareness, it is almost like a programming because it's rather consistent in how they want to bond. I was overly simplifying it a little because it's rather complex and I'm not a chemist nor an evolutionary biologist, and for simplicity's sake given this is an internet board. The particles that make up our atoms aren't any different from other particles, but as they bond together for their stability, and form more complex things like atoms and molecules, eventually if the conditions are right, it can grow into a more complex form that can react more to its surroundings, such as moving closer to the surface of the water to catch more sunlight, which gives it more energy and thus the cycle escalates.

I know it's not an uber satisfying answer, but we simply just don't know every little detail yet, still plenty of research going in.



We make new discoveries that can potentially change our understanding of science all the time, even now we're finding discoveries that don't mesh with our Lambda-CDM model and the Hubble Constant isn't so constant after all. I'm also not all that worried about some asteroid hitting Earth, that's among the least of my concerns, there are far worse objects out there, and far more pressing issues down here that we should be concerned about before asteroids. We're not advancing nearly as fast as we could be, especially with so little funding and attention be given to the topic.

As for everything else, I'm not looking to get roped into any religious or church vs science debate so I'm just going to take my exit from the ring here.

Thanks for that. At the end of what I wrote I figured I just took you too literally and you were using general teams. Thanks for following up though. You're a smart dude and I appreciate your insight (particularly in subjects I know nothing about, like this).