Do extra terrestrials exist? If so...

Glaucus · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:12

Davepen said:
I did say the known universe.

We do know an awful lot tho, not eveything, but a lot.

More than enough to make an educated guess

No we don't, So what's the probability of life arising?
Or if we Take one plant over 1billion years what's the probability of life arising?
You can't even take a guess at that, let alone an educated one. We know nothing in this area.

So stop saying educated guess and I'm not talking about human knowledge as a whole, as a whole we know a lot. Our knowledge of the chance of life arising is non existent.

I've allready said what I believe, I believe in life elsewhere, it's an opinion a guess a gut feeling. It certainly isnt basses on your Noddy educated guess which simply don't exist.

Castiel · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:16

Davepen said:
I did say the known universe.

We do know an awful lot tho, not eveything, but a lot.

More than enough to make an educated guess

The point is that effectively the entire hypothesis is largely based on assumptions, some assumptions have a relatively high probability to them, some however are just filling the gaps....

The problem is not that we make the assumptions, but that we do not ascribe undue value to them, such as stating that Life must exist on other planets becasue of assumptions x,y,z.......

Angilion · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:17

Bulldog14 said:
An important thing to keep in mind about the Drake equation is not so much the numbers it can predict, but the fact that it gives us a formula to plug numbers into. The numbers it can generate will become increasingly accurate as variables are worked out and refined. For example since we have started to detect planets wholesale we can input more accurate data than Drakes day when such things could only be guessed on. It is the framework that it provides that is the genius of it.

Look at some of the terms:

the fraction of the above [planets that might support life] that actually go on to develop life at some point

How can we get an accurate number to put into that without having already surveyed the universe in enough detail to know whether or not each planet has life on it?

the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life

As above.

the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

As above.

the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

Which we couldn't know without asking civilisations which used to do so an no longer do, and then only if they had reliable records of that entire span of their history, and even then it would only be true to that particular civilisation.

In short, if we're ever in a position to put any meaningful numbers in Drake's equation, we will be long past the point where the result would have any meaning because we will already know the answer. It's not predictive. It's descriptive.

Davepen · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:24

Glaucus said:
No we don't, So what's the probability of life arising?
Or if we Take one plant over 1billion years what's the probability of life arising?
You can't even take a guess at that, let alone an educated one. We know nothing in this area.

So stop saying educated guess and I'm not talking about human knowledge as a whole, as a whole we know a lot. Our knowledge of the chance of life arising is non existent.

I've allready said what I believe, I believe in life elsewhere, it's an opinion a guess a gut feeling. It certainly isnt basses on your Noddy educated guess which simply don't exist.

From the state or your spelling I'd even say you have yet to fully evolve

Bulldog14 · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:25

Angilion said:
But is it the right formula to plug numbers into? Who knows? Even if we had some accurate numbers to plug into it, it's still just a guess. Besides, look at some of the terms:

the fraction of the above [planets that might support life] that actually go on to develop life at some point

How can we get an accurate number to put into that without having already surveyed a large proportion of the universe in enough detail to know whether or not each planet has life on it?

the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life

As above.

the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

As above.

the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

Which we couldn't know without asking civilisations which used to do so an no longer do, and then only if they had reliable records of that entire span of their history.

In short, if we're ever in a position to put any meaningful numbers in Drake's equation, we will be long past the point where the result would have any meaning because we will already know the answer.

Correct in the sense that it isn't complete. Did Drake have any idea of the role of tides or plate tectonics , for example, when he created the formula? Probably not to the extent we know now for sure. The basic formula is sound, but its the categories he divides it into that should be sub-categorized and expanded upon as new data becomes available.

To me there had to be a start. There had to be someone at some point who said: "There must be a way to try and calculate the odds" Drakes equation is that start. That some of it's basic categories need to be filled out is without doubt.

Glaucus · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:25

Very mature and awnsering the question.

Merlin5 · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:26

What about the Na'vi on Pandora?

Castiel · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:26

I have mentioned this before, but no one seems to be picking up on it....Fermi's Paradox.

Basically Enrico Fermi asked, "If Extraterrestrial Life exists, where is everybody?"

You can possibly use a derivation of the Drake Equation to calculate the probability that there are hundreds of thousands of intelligent races that have over millions of years have developed sufficient technology to be able to populate the galaxy despite the distances involved in interstellar travel (generational ships, Von Neumann's automated self replicating robots and so on), as Fermi said that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy, or at least leave evidence that they were there at some point....and so where the are they all?

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec28.html

Davepen · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:27

We do know the answers to these, at least from the point of view of our own solar system:

the fraction of the above [planets that might support life] that actually go on to develop life at some point

the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life

the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

Now considering that 1/8th of the planets in our solar system, earth, can tick all of those boxes.

If you take that into consideration and then apply that to rest of the observable universe, you can see how it's pretty likely.

The only factor that could be an issue is the final point.

For all we know vast civilisations have come and gone in other solar systems, but have destroyed themselves before we have had a chance to notice them.

Castiel · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:31

Davepen said:
the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

30 - 40 years?

So if we extrapolate that to include the billions upon billions of palnets in the universe, with the billions of years the universe has been in existence, with the fact that millions, if not billions of examples of intelligent life has been releasing detectable signals into the Universe every 30-40 years....then by probability alone we should have been bombarded with signals that are patently artificial in origin....so where are they?

Even if they no longer exist, their signals would still be detectable...how do you think we determine the age of the Universe?

Fermi's Paradox.

Glaucus · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:32

LoL did you even bother reading the questions?

Are the 8 planets able to sustain life? Has only one planet given rise to life?
Really you have an inability to judge this stuff.

Spook187 · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:35

Castiel said:
I have mentioned this before, but no one seems to be picking up on it....Fermi's Paradox.

Basically Enrico Fermi asked, "If Extraterrestrial Life exists, where is everybody?"

You can possibly use a derivation of the Drake Equation to calculate the probability that there are hundreds of thousands of intelligent races that have over millions of years have developed sufficient technology to be able to populate the galaxy despite the distances involved in interstellar travel (generational ships, Von Neumann's automated self replicating robots and so on), as Fermi said that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy, or at least leave evidence that they were there at some point....and so where the are they all?

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec28.html

Yes it's a good read that Castiel,maybe though there is only one civilisation in each Galaxy,as we all know the universe is so vast we just havn't picked up the right signals yet,it's actually quite scary to think if we are all alone in the universe

Davepen · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:37

Glaucus said:
LoL did you even bother reading the questions?

Are the 8 planets able to sustain life? Has only one planet given rise to life?
Really you have an inability to judge this stuff.

Yeah I may have read it slightly incorrectly, but simply:

Out of 8 planets in our solar system, one has life. Intelligent life.

That alone, and not only how big our galaxy is, but also taking into account the billions of other galaxies that contain billions of other solar systems, for life to only be on our little pin ***** would be highly unlikely

Castiel · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:40

Spook187 said:
Yes it's a good read that Castiel,maybe though there is only one civilizationin each Galaxy,as we all know the universe is so vast we just havn't picked up the right signals yet,it's actually quite scary to think if we are all alone in the universe

Maybe so, although if we are looking at the probability that each Galaxy has only one civilisation (or example of intelligent life) then what conclusions can be drawn from that very unusual statistic in regard to why each galaxy only has one intelligent life-form....how would that impact on what we assume about the random nature of the Universe....

We may also have picked up the signals, but simply not recognised them for what they are.

There are lots of alternative competing theories that is for sure, and you can possibly see from how you feel about being alone in this vast universe, how someone may make assumptions that lead them to a belief in a God or Spirituality of some description. (this could also apply to not recognising signals from extraterrestrial life for what they are..Prophets, Seers and whathaveyou...)

They simply make different assumptions based on their experiences.

Glaucus · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:41

For it to be highly unlikely you need a a high chance of life spontaneously existing. We have zero values for this probability.

You've also assumed 1/8 planets is identical to earth. Same distance from same size and age sun, sheilded by magnetic field and gas giants, has thick atmosphere so on and so forth.

Bulldog14 · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:41

Another point that I find interesting is that large numbers tend to make averages more accurate, which gives me confidence in the Drake equation. If anything the universe presents us with large numbers often. For example I was doing some reading the other day on the stars in our local area of the galaxy. Thousands have been catalogued over the last decades. 70% are red dwarfs. This seems to be indicitive for our galaxy as a whole. Given that red dwarves have considerably less potential for habitable planets given the reduced green zone gives us a hard number to work with. The 70% is accurate as it is a sampling from thousands of stars rather than 10s or 100s. We can plug this number into the equation and get a more accurate outcome.

The website in question btw: http://www.solstation.com/stars.htm

Glaucus · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:42

Confidence on the drake equation. The drake equation doesn't contain averages. It contains random numbers.

Castiel · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:45

Bulldog14 said:
Another point that I find interesting is that large numbers tend to make averages more accurate, which gives me confidence in the Drake equation. If anything the universe presents us with large numbers often. For example I was doing some reading the other day on the stars in our local area of the galaxy. Thousands have been catalogued over the last decades. 70% are red dwarfs. This seems to be indicitive for our galaxy as a whole. Given that red dwarves have considerably less potential for habitable planets given the reduced green zone gives us a hard number to work with. The 70% is accurate as it is a sampling from thousands of stars rather than 10s or 100s. We can plug this number into the equation and get a more accurate outcome.

Drake himself said that the equation was not science, it was merely a way of encouraging debate.

Davepen · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:47

Glaucus said:
You've also assumed 1/8 planets is identical to earth.

Not really.

Simply that one planet, out of 8, that orbit one star, out of trillions of stars, holds intelligent life.

There must be someone else out there.... there must be.

Bulldog14 · 11 Apr 2012 at 15:55

Glaucus said:
Confidence on the drake equation. The drake equation doesn't contain averages. It contains random numbers.

There is a difference between highly variable numbers and random numbers. People often mistake the 2 as outcomes using either appear random and mind boggling.