My Alien Life theory

SuperBOB

SuperBOB

SuperBOB

Associate
Joined
11 Jan 2004
Posts
515
Location
Sydney, Oz
Im sure this theory isn't unique but it has never been presented to me by anybody else. I always spout this crap out when im drunk in a pub - and I could use some criticism. I want to believe in aliens. I want to believe that line in Contact - "Itd be a waste of space if we were alone".

Assumptions

Space is infinite (Read very large, if you want)
Time is infinite (Read very long, if you want)
All civilizations have a life span (E.G The human race will eventually cease to exist)
Life is rare

Theory

Needle in a haystack * Needle in a haystack * Needle disintegrates within 30 seconds = Would take a miracle.
 
SuperBOB said:
Theory

Needle in a haystack * Needle in a haystack * Needle disintegrates within 30 seconds = Would take a miracle.
Click to expand...

So, what your saying is "aliens exist somewhere at sometime but it's very unlikely that we will ever find them"

Im pretty sure that's a commonly held theory.
 
It stands to reason that there has to be another form of life out there in the big wide universe.

Whether they look like us or the aliens that you generally see on TV when there is a sighting i have no idea. There has to be life out there - WE ARE NOT ALONE
 
I used to have a theory, probably common, that aliens are us from the future. Then I became a Christian and thought maybe they are angels. Now I am a slightly older christian, I believe both the latter, plus your own theory SuperBOB, are possible. :p
 
My theory goes like this:

Maybe there are, maybe there aren't.

If there are it's 99.9% likely we will never ever know about it and if there aren't it makes no difference to us at all.
 
Is it as clear a night tonight as last night? Might go for a spot of star gazing. :)

*Edit. Cloudy, what did I expect in Manchester.





Harry Hill did a joke where a fly heading towards the light of a takeaway fly killer and has a heart attack just prior to hitting the zapper and is revived by the shock - "what are the chances of that happening"
 
Last edited:
The other night on yahoo questions, someone put this question out there...

Isn't it kind of weird when you start to think about how your on a planet, and there are more massive planets out there, and you wonder maybe other planets have human life too, maybe its not just earth. but its kind of weird to think that they are probably billions of light years away and them, and us, will never know about each other.
Click to expand...




This was my reply.

There are over 100 billion galaxies, each with 100 billion stars on average, each with a mathematical average 4 million earth like planets.

4 million x 100 billion = 400 Quadrillion (fifteen zero`s) possible inhabitable worlds in mathematical existence in the viewable universe.

Providing the civilised human race survives another ten thousand years, we will be out there. We are already slowly learning that the laws of physics that we thought we were bound by are turning out to be mere guides rather than the empirical facts we have all taken them for for the last 100 years, ask any physicist what happens to the laws of physics in a black whole and you will get two answers, one will be "eerm" and the other will be "there are no laws that work there" followed by a lot of sobbing into a pillow.

There are only two ways the human race will never meet other civilisations, either we are destroyed somehow before we advance enough to get out there, or as Carl Sagan said, "someone has to come first" which could well be us.
Source(s):
Carl Sagan
Horizon Documentary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nslc4
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/021127a.html
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/
Click to expand...
 
Neverwhere said:
The other night on yahoo questions, someone put this question out there...






This was my reply....
Click to expand...


Your reply was somewhat... naive. to put it politely.

This:
"We are already slowly learning that the laws of physics that we thought we were bound by are turning out to be mere guides rather than the empirical facts",
shows your lack of understanding of what science ever was in the first place.
 
Amleto said:
Your reply was somewhat... naive. to put it politely.

This:
"We are already slowly learning that the laws of physics that we thought we were bound by are turning out to be mere guides rather than the empirical facts",
shows your lack of understanding of what science ever was in the first place.
Click to expand...


It wasn't my reply as such, the basic planetary mathematics I used was information taken from Cosmos: A Pesonal Voyage made by Carl Sagan who is widely regarded as one of if not the greatest astrophysicists of the 20th century. And you just called him Naive.

As for the laws of physics. You just called most of the eminent scientists of the late 20th and early 21st century Naive also.

For the laws of physics as we know them to be the solid laws we have all grown up accepting, especially Einstein's special relativity, it depends on those laws being applicable and fundamentals of those laws to be constant throughout the universe. The problem is, they are not, and they may very well need to be rewritten, not from scratch as such, but we have discovered a place where the universal certainty's of our laws of physics do not work, quantum theory, no, special relativity, no. Thermal dynamics, no, the basic laws of mass gravity light and time, no. And as such, they are no longer certainty's at all.

If you don't believe me, watch the Horizon documentary, but actually gather some evidence next time before you open your trap to insult someone.
 
Last edited:
Neverwhere said:
This was my reply.
Click to expand...

Neverwhere said:
It wasn't my reply as such,
Click to expand...

ok... reading on.

it seems that you hold these theories, crafted by great minds, no doubt, as though they were meant to be all encompassing upon their inception. no! and indeed, the authours knew this straight away. You have missed my point, in that you do not understand science. The scientists know that everything we theorise is an approximation. It is inherent in all things that have any assumptions. They all know we are not creating models based on, or capable of predicting certainty. Yet you seem to believe this. This is why I call what you said naive.

You think they got something wrong. No, they knew the limitations. You think that what they created applied to everything, everywhere. Your lack of knowledge and understanding is higlighted by insisting that a theory has to be applicable everywhere. Inherent in the theories we are talking about, are limitations of applicability.

You end your rebuttle with a citation of the highest quality, a televesion documentary no less!

It seems you have a little knowledge, but as the saying goes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And you are spreading misinformation.
 
Last edited:
Quite a common theory :)

It took life on Earth ~2 billion years to evolve from single cells to multi cell organisms.
Its not just the time that matters, its the odds of life evolving, then its the odds of evolving to have self awareness.
Once all that is factored in its not hard to see just how unique the human life form can potentially be.

I'm sure there is life out there, but the chances of it being intelligent and in our time line are pretty slim even in the great scheme of things
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom