Are we alone?

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

The biggest piece of evidence that there must be life elsewhere in the Universe is the fact that it exists here...if life evolved here on Earth, it is clear there is at least one mechanism for it to happen, so why not elsewhere?

I haven't heard that argument before Mike but its a very good one.
Also in my opinion I don't think we really want to be in contact with other civilisations anyway. I mean how good would you be as a sex slave or a salt mine worker??

Also I reckon if other civilisations find out we have Passionfruit on this planet we'll be invaded by the weekend!

Greg.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

I mean how good would you be as a sex slave

..totally depends on the master I guess?

[Shiraz (Ray)]

Originally Posted by Atmos

We most definitely are alone! I also challenge you to prove me otherwise. Or, if we are not alone, I challenge you to find those leprechauns that have the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow

The proposition that there is no other life out there is fundamentally unprovable (to prove it you would, at the very least, have to look thoroughly in every little nook and cranny on every planet around every one of the 10^29? odd stars out there - and find nothing).

The proposition that there IS something out there may one day be proved (it is at least possible to prove, if it is true - it only needs one bacterium on Mars or one coded laser signal) - I'll go with this one - better odds

[Kunama]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Yesterday and the day before I had to focus on things other than the pending settlement of my new 100 acre dark site. So I was trying to get my mind off all that...
But happily all settled but I cant get to go there cause I have to stay in town.
Now I have time to be bored and open to debate anything everything and of course nothing.

I am here to remind people nutters like me are out there.

Have a great day I will I can feel the stress lifting even now. Thank goodness its is over. I have been trying to get this done for over three years.


I gave up on the place I was after and with that turkey out of my life can get back to trusting religious folk... A bitter experience and now I move on.

Thanks for extending me tolerence without knowing why I needed to let off steam.
Alex

and here I was thinking you had stumbled onto someone's 'cash crop' in the bush and tested it........ Happy to hear you're just an ordinary nutter like the rest of us, enjoy your new dark site


As for the original thread, of course we are not the only 'living' things in this universe, how very arrogantly human of us to even think so.

I also note that the Big Bang and watermelon are only half the story, if we could peer a little further back into this universe's past, we would see that it actually began as something much larger than its present size and coalesced under the force of gravity into that 'watermelon' at which point the sheer density of that clump and the heat caused by the compression caused a kind of a Super-duper Nova around 14Bn years ago.....

[xelasnave]

Hi Markus
Remember I am trying to relate my understanding of the big bang theory and it has it there is no outside.
It is a well developed scientific model and models simply try an fit our maths and observations into a box that helps us think we understand reality.
Importantly scientific models enable us to make predictions and if they fail here out they go..so far mainstream science is happy the theory of the evolution of the Universe is satisfactory but for each of us personal we can speculate.
Plenty of speculation goes on both from mainstream and cranks which is ok but it is speculation not theory and theory in science is best seen as meaning the same as solid fact.It means more than the common usage which is ..an idea that pops into my head.

[75BC (Brendon)]

If you’re a nutter Alex then YOU are not alone looking at the interest in this thread. It’s certainly got mine.

This is a subject I’ve pondered since falling in love with the stars as a child.
And for what it’s worth, my opinion is in line with Matts’.


[QUOTE=Kunama;1250849]

As for the original thread, of course we are not the only 'living' things in this universe, how very arrogantly human of us to even think so.

[xelasnave]

Hi Matt can't walk too far these days but if I sampled any cash crop out there I would get my legs broken for sure.
Don't drink don't smoke dont take any medications but love a nice cuppa.
Being alone has probably left me a little strange and I am near seventy.Thanks for your thoughts. Alex

[xelasnave]

Hi Brendon thanks for your nice comments.
Bottom line is we don't know and probably should keep open minds and enjoy all views.
Alex

[OICURMT]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Nevertheless that is our current model and one must accept it will stand until a better model is presented that is how science works. Personally I find it hard to accept but I must while we wait for a better model.

Nevertheless without inflation theory the big bang theory would seem to fail as without that approach the theory seems that it must fail. Inflation was added to explain the sameness of the Universe.

Might I suggest that you become a protagonist for the "Variable Speed of Light" hypothesis? Not a new concept, Einstein toyed with the idea for a while...

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


João Magueijo did a Science Channel documentary in 2008 about the Big Bang and postulated a solution by having c as a variable. He does a good job of describing the problem and his solution.

Click here to load the video

Loading...

<LATE EDIT: The part you are looking for is the explanation of the Horizon Problem, which will challenge the idea of "how" the universe expanded>

[75BC (Brendon)]

Very good point Alex. We don’t know. Just seems so darn unlikely we are alone to me. Could end up being nothing like what we think. We once thought the Earth was flat, then we found out it was round. That would been hard for people to get their head around.

An open mind like an open door invites in what would otherwise be missed.

[simmo]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

..so far mainstream science is happy the theory of the evolution of the Universe is satisfactory but for each of us personal we can speculate.
Plenty of speculation goes on both from mainstream and cranks which is ok but it is speculation not theory and theory in science is best seen as meaning the same as solid fact.It means more than the common usage which is ..an idea that pops into my head.

I would have to disagree Alex. Theory is speculation even if a good one until proven as fact. I think that at some point all we can do is speculate as we will be, as said, limited to our own horizon.

Bigbang, evolution,etc. are just theory as far as I know so just speculation of what has happened. People thought the world was flat only a couple of years ago. Until we get a Columbus that sails to 'India' of the universe or can travel back through time we can only live with speculation at best.

My thoughts on it is that we are inherent of being foolish in thinking that we are somewhat smart. If you look through history there are many of examples of WT# were they thinking? So while it is fun to speculate what can be and is often useful at the end of the day there are some things that we will never know. That would bug some people out there but I am content with knowing how precious our life here is on this planet as it is at the moment impossible to find life elsewhere in the universe. And extremely more difficult to get to them even if we did.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by OICURMT

Might I suggest that you become a protagonist for the "Variable Speed of Light" hypothesis? Not a new concept, Einstein toyed with the idea for a while...

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


João Magueijo did a Science Channel documentary in 2008 about the Big Bang and postulated a solution by having c as a variable. He does a good job of describing the problem and his solution.

<LATE EDIT: The part you are looking for is the explanation of the Horizon Problem, which will challenge the idea of "how" the universe expanded>

Thanks for all that I have read it once but will re read it as there is a bit to take in.
I had no idea about this and thought that Special Relativity and General Relativity depends upon C being invarient.
In any event my personal opinion is not scientific and of no consequence and my comment on inflation being introduced to save the bb theory id historic not my view.
Mainstream has no problem with it ...
Trying to state what the theory says simply was probably not a good idea for a layman but I did and probably did not do a very good job.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Hi Simmo
In science the word "theory" holds a meaning different from what you expect.
As I said "theory" is best read as."fact".
That is not my opinion it it the way of things.
I am not disagreeing with anything you day but in science "theory" is a word unlike the one we use day to day.
To have a theory one develops an idea or hypothesis with evidence observation maths and most important testable predictions.
One our scientific theory is in place it takes a better theory to replace it..the now theory must answer problems the first one does not or rather make better predictions..if not the old theory word stay.
This is not my opinion but my attempt to explain the way science sees things.
Alex

[Paul Haese]

Determining that we are alone due to lack of evidence is highly illogical when viewing the entire universe. It just means that we don't have enough evidence to make an assessment one way or the other.

If you look at what we do know:

Our radio signals have only moved out about 80 light years from earth since we began emitting signals. That is merely a drop in the ocean and does not mean we are alone. It just means no one within 30 light years wants to respond or may not exist.

Our search parameters might actually be too narrow. Are we restricting our chance of finding life by doing this?

Our equipment and techniques are not at a mature state of development and not likely to show anything yet other than lots of planets in our locale. Our ability to detect or even resolve other planets is limited.

There are trillions and trillions and trillions of stars in the universe, with a corresponding amount of planets. Statistically it is likely that life (intelligent) exists else where and we are more than likely to never know about them.

There are several candidate planets already in the mix where life could exist in our galaxy. The search for extra solar planets is just covering a very small part of the galaxy.

I doubt we will ever know in the next 100 years if we are in fact alone or not. More money and time needed to make a determination. I don't think we are alone.

[xelasnave]

sorry about spelling i blame my phone

[deanm (Dean)]

I think it would be desperately sad if we knew for certain that we were alone, forever.

What a waste of infinity...

Dean

[Robh (Rob)]

Hi Alex,

I'm going to take a slightly different point of view here.

The Universe may be infinitely large but this is something we will perhaps never know. As the Universe expands, more and more objects will slip through the cosmic event horizon and this actually shrinks our view of it. We are effectively constricted to the observable Universe.

In our observable Universe, the number of planets will be finite. As will the number of stars. It is not known how easy it is to produce life somewhere else in the Universe. If it is a property of our Universe that life will automatically form given a range of optimal conditions (Goldilocks zone) that is an intriguing proposition in itself. But why should this be the case?

It is possible, that a certain sequence of rare events or pre-conditions are necessary to "fluke" life. We do, of course, know that life exists on Earth. Evolution tells us something about the progress of life forms. But the beginnings of life we know little about. Perhaps, the probability of life forming is infinitesimally small. Much smaller in order of magnitude than the number of planets where we think life might form. It is entirely possible that the formation of life on Earth was a singular fluke.

Until we can sample other planets or perhaps get an intelligent signal from elsewhere, the proposition that life exists elsewhere is pure speculation. And intelligent life may be even rarer.

Regards, Rob

[xelasnave]

Just saw this on another site....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b096e9f092e60d

Alex

[xelasnave]

Hi Rob
I don't not disagree with what you say.
We may be it and be totally alone but we may be one of trillions (check the link I just posted).
I have thinking about this quiet a bit.
I thin we have various pointers that may suggest life could exist in very harshenvironments.
Have a look at exstreamophiles.
You would bet your house that such could not exist yet there they are defying all our preconceived notions.
For me it suggests life will take hold in places we can not yet imagine.
Another pointer is organic materials discovered in comet tails.
Sorry I can't give authority for that but if I am wrong someone will say so of that I am sure.
Another pointer is the life found in rock well underground again no authority but same if wrong I will be told.
But until we find something out there one one of the moons in the solar system or maybe Mars we can only speculate.
Anyways the link suggests trillions I think.
I think life is merely a chemistry thing which we have yet to work out but if someone can create life in the lab such that it is clear it is a chemistry thing that will mean life will be everywhere.
Alex

[Stonius (Markus)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Hi Markus
Remember I am trying to relate my understanding of the big bang theory and it has it there is no outside.
It is a well developed scientific model and models simply try an fit our maths and observations into a box that helps us think we understand reality.
Importantly scientific models enable us to make predictions and if they fail here out they go..so far mainstream science is happy the theory of the evolution of the Universe is satisfactory but for each of us personal we can speculate.
Plenty of speculation goes on both from mainstream and cranks which is ok but it is speculation not theory and theory in science is best seen as meaning the same as solid fact.It means more than the common usage which is ..an idea that pops into my head.

Yes. The Big Bang theory does a very good job of explaining the expansion of the universe from a singularity, and yes, it's been verified experimentally over and over and it's as close to fact as we know how to be right now. Though I wasn't aware it made any prediction about there being other universes or not. If it does, how have they been experimentally verified?

Maybe we're talking about two separate things here. I'm not saying that the big bang was an expansion of matter into a pre-existing spacetime, I'm saying we're stuck inside an event horizon and can't know anything about what's outside it, positive or negative.

It would be like one inhabitant of a black hole trying to know something about someone in a neighboring black hole. Not possible, given the local laws of physics for each party, and yet it is possible for more than one black hole to exist at once.

Regarding the question of life in the universe, I imagine that if it has happened once in such a vast universe, the chances of it being the only time it happened are vanishingly small. I merely extend the same thinking to the universe itself. If the Big Bang happened once, whatever the conditions were that caused it could surely happen again. If not, what makes our particular universe so special?