more dumb egotistical closed mindedness by PHD scientists who disagree with the gfy science club who have all knocked-knocked on the science being settled.


The new research field of astrobiology is drastically reshaping our understanding of potential extraterrestrial life, especially complex, intelligent life. This interdisciplinary field includes the questions we're considering here, namely the search for habitable environments in space, and the origins of life on Earth. Astrobiology is starting to point to the idea that advanced life may be uncommon in the universe. If, then, the origin of life is extremely rare, it may have been totally by chance that life arose on Earth so early and so quickly. There is even the possibility that non-natural agencies are responsible, since life has the hallmarks of top-down design, if we think outside the limitations of naturalism.9 A recent article in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) shows that without evidence of life arising independently from Earth, we can't assume that life is common in the universe because of its early appearance here.



hahahahahahah

you're over your head here, otherwise you'd be able to contribute something/carry on an adult convo instead of trying to hurl insults.

which, btw, reveals much more about you and the others than me. I'm open to science, you, certainly are not, nor are you truly interested in the subject matter.

no, you are more interested in trying to insult, which is fine, go for it, keep showing just how incapable you are.

check out this retarded, egotistical cunt astrobiologist's study, what a retard!

Another researcher who breaks the bias barrier is the author of Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional-and What That Means for Life in the Universe, astrobiologist David Waltham, who states, "Because, by definition, we conduct our research from a habitable planet, we cannot generalize our experience assuming that it is universal."

Waltham blames his colleagues' disagreement with him on this point on observational bias. "Our view of what is really there has been misled by the accident of what we're able to see." He uses the example of the night sky to illustrate this point. The vast majority of stars in the galaxy are invisible to our naked eye. Only the very close or giant stars are bright enough to see. But our view of the night sky is misleading, since we don't see the real population of stars, only the visible bright ones. The Earth is our only example of a habitable planet, and due to the principle of mediocrity, we assume it is an average case.

Waltham only hints at the quantifiable rarity of the Earth when he posits that Earth might be one in a trillion, and says he doesn't think there is any evidence to suggest it should be higher odds than that.

This makes Earth, according to him, unique in at least the Milky Way, considering that there are only up to 200 billion planets in the galaxy. This probably means we are effectively alone, as intergalactic travel, and even communication, seems unlikely.

Thats hilarious considering you create these threads with the sole purpose to get people to argue with you. Not once have you provided your own thoughts other than 'fact: There is no other intelligent life in the entire universe.' which is of course is not a fact, just another troll attempt.

it's kinda sad to me that you think trying to discuss higher level subjects that have yet to be concluded is trolling. What's worse, is you can easily read this thread and see that I'm the one that's been trying to have an adult convo while people like you come in and hurl insults then tell me I'm trolling.

I've provided scientific view, articles, papers, graphics etc to corroborate my view and not once have you been able to dispute it and I'm the troll. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

logic, look into it.

in the meantime, check out this closed-minded egotistical cunt scientist who is certainly trolling and not as smart as suckonthis et al who have concluded the science is settled on the universe.
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Another recent book presents the case that Earth is very rare. Alone In the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique, by astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin, gives much support to the idea that Earthlike planets, at least those with technological intelligent aliens on them, are exceedingly rare. His reasons go beyond just the habitability factors a planet must meet. He also shows that there are many contingent events in the Earth's history, the history of life, and in the development of technological civilization, that had to happen to bring us to this point in our existence. These rare chance events, such as the lunar formation event, the Cambrian explosion of animal life forms, and the development of science, all contribute to where we are today. It is far from probable that we and our technological civilization should be here. To expect Earth to be typical in the universe is overly optimistic. As Gribbin writes in the preface, we are the result of "a chain of coincidences that led to the emergence of intelligent life on Earth. And that chain has so many weak links that it may mean that, for all the proliferation of stars and planets in the Universe, as an intelligent species we may be unique."

It's obvious most of y'all are closed off to any and all scientific research or viewpoints that are too complex for you to comprehend and challenge your level of understanding, nevertheless, here's another:

Recent astrobiological research now points to the realization that environments, intergalactic, galactic, planetary system, stellar, and planetary, which are stable enough to allow life to arise and develop over several billion years as it has on Earth, are so rare that few if any civilizations will actually make it to the point where they can communicate beyond their planet. New discoveries about our sun and solar system's unique history have significant bearing on the issue of habitability. In addition, the Moon, the event that formed it, and its present existence also have important consequences for the issue of Earth's habitability.

dang, another troll retard ego cunt scientist! the nerve of this guy!

A recent article in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) shows that without evidence of life arising independently from Earth, we can't assume that life is common in the universe because of its early appearance here.

Bayesian analysis of the astrobiological implications of life?s early emergence on Earth

fact: There is no other intelligent life in the entire universe.


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

A summary of the gfy braintrust's brilliant refutation of my claim that we are alone in the universe:

1. nuh uh.

2. you're stupid.

3. you're trolling.

4. you're a cunt.

5. your ego is as big as the universe.

6. PHDs, scientists, experts, professionals, astrobiologists, SETI, anyone open to the simple statistical fact are all stupid.

7. you're closed minded

well argued. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

yup, my attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor to try and set the tone for this thread fell upon deaf ears. Kinda like the fact that there is a statistical chance that we are in fact alone in the entire universe. But heresy to even mumble such a notion. gfy think tank has it settled- we are not alone. that's a fact. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I agree with dyna mo on this one, as far as intelligent life as we understand it goes. Which also means I don't discount some other form of intelligence, and intelligent life (than can create it's own definition of art to be appreciated by others) elsewhere in the universe.

I don't think it's egotistical to side with those who have worked out that another earth-like planet as well as the formation of life as we know it to be extremely astronomical, and therefore unlikely, but I do think it maybe a bit 'small-minded' for want of a better phrase, to believe our intelligence as the only type of intelligence there is.

pick the bones out of that one lol.

the great news is being alone = zero competition for resources and colonization. cha-ching!

the entire visible universe is ours for the taking. :1orglaugh

yeah but if we do that, we'll destroy the universe in years to come. though I guess it'd fall under 'unique idea' so that's a pro right there

oh hey, btw, the reason I included the word *fact* in the title is to point out that the other side has assumed us to not be alone as fact. You know that right? You've assumed as fact that we are not alone. That's why peeps got upset in here with my posts.


the simple fact is the answer to "are we alone?" can be either yes or no.

Including the unknown bacteria that could potentially wipe us all out.

I thought of this, if there was life based on the numbers they would be flying around all over. Then I realized people get dumber has society evolves, so as they had a chance to get to the point of interstaller would of been the furthest they made before blowing themselves up.

I'm sure we will do the same.

They won't stick around if ever they find us.

"they're made out of meat and they're ruled by jews"

Or the one that could save us all. Either way, the good news is a lack of having to compete. Life expands though, naturally, regardless of the potential risks.

are we alone?

Maybe yes... maybe no... maybe Terrence McKenna has it right...

When civilizations have the technology to harness enough energy to travel to another galaxy, there would be no need to do so.

In their world, kids create galaxies before breakfast.

You only have to look at this planet to see how hard it is to leave the atmosphere. How many species have ever lived on earth? How many of those would be considered intelligent? How many of them have left the atmosphere?

Stop thinking so hard. I mean don't you think alien civilizations have laws and such? They can't get funding to send their people to earth. They get sued too much so they stop testing their long range spacecraft. Worst of all, they get dumber over time; as technology increases they evolve to be more simple.

Both common sense and the law of probabilities screams out that there has to be intelligent life out there.

The fact that this part of the galaxy hasn't had any visits from such would seem to confirm that faster than light travel is a physical impossibility however.

They don't need to go fast if they've mastered genetics enough to slow or stop aging.

They would sure need a lot of patience however. The nearest possible earth like planets are tens of thousands of light years distant.

I hope they haven't died of boredom before they get here.

Why do they need to be earthlike planets? We only assume that based on a small sample from our own galaxy.

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs39/i/20...vineDesign.png
Drake equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I want drake to murder my vagina.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rank_Drake.jpg

Lol. I've already mentioned the Drake equation several times here already. Again, in spite of it, Fermi paradox remains unanswered.

Moreover, astrobiologists have explained fully how drakes equation means very little in reality.

Fuel is probably expensive on their planet. Maybe they are super intelligent but have no way to get here.

Common sense has very little to do with the universe and the evolution of life. If it were all so obvious, then the question would be answered.
The speed of light is a man made limit.

The universe is a harsh environment and life is rare because of it. Assuming complex intelligent life just pops up because it did here is assuming a lot.

Are dinosaurs complex and intelligent? They were here for 825 times longer than humans have been here. At least according to google - dinosaurs 165 million years - humans 200,000 years. Point is, dinos were never going to leave earth even if they stayed on the planet for it's entire existence.

I think humans are probably an anomaly. Perhaps a handful of similar lifeforms out there capable of leaving their home planet. Even fewer with the right materials and motive to leave.

Anyone read this???? dyna mo?

Well even on earth we have only one intelligent life form(humans) it takes luck and many years for civilization to build up. Anyways if the same conditions as were on earth would reproduce on a different planet a life like what we have here would probably exist. no reason for why not..
in terms of connecting with a planet or areas in the galaxy that are so far away probably its just not as easy.

E.T.'s manifesto.

Read much of it - mighty impressed with the extraterrestrial's command of the French/English language. :1orglaugh

Should be added as a new chapter in that other fictitious book - the bible. :1orglaugh

the issue with Drake's equation::::::::


As many stars as there are in our galaxy (100 ? 400 billion), there are roughly an equal number of galaxies in the observable universe?so for every star in the colossal Milky Way, there?s a whole galaxy out there. All together, that comes out to the typically quoted range of between 1022 and 1024 total stars, which means that for every grain of sand on Earth, there are 10,000 stars out there.

The science world isn?t in total agreement about what percentage of those stars are ?sun-like? (similar in size, temperature, and luminosity)?opinions typically range from 5% to 20%. Going with the most conservative side of that (5%), and the lower end for the number of total stars (1022), gives us 500 quintillion, or 500 billion billion sun-like stars.

There?s also a debate over what percentage of those sun-like stars might be orbited by an Earth-like planet (one with similar temperature conditions that could have liquid water and potentially support life similar to that on Earth). Some say it?s as high as 50%, but let?s go with the more conservative 22% that came out of a recent PNAS study. That suggests that there?s a potentially-habitable Earth-like planet orbiting at least 1% of the total stars in the universe?a total of 100 billion billion Earth-like planets.

So there are 100 Earth-like planets for every grain of sand in the world. Think about that next time you?re on the beach.

Moving forward, we have no choice but to get completely speculative. Let?s imagine that after billions of years in existence, 1% of Earth-like planets develop life (if that?s true, every grain of sand would represent one planet with life on it). And imagine that on 1% of those planets, the life advances to an intelligent level like it did here on Earth. That would mean there were 10 quadrillion, or 10 million billion intelligent civilizations in the observable universe.

Moving back to just our galaxy, and doing the same math on the lowest estimate for stars in the Milky Way (100 billion), we?d estimate that there are 1 billion Earth-like planets and 100,000 intelligent civilizations in our galaxy.


If we?re right that there are 100,000 or more intelligent civilizations in our galaxy, and even a fraction of them are sending out radio waves or laser beams or other modes of attempting to contact others,?

But we haven?t. Not one. Ever.

Where is everybody? they are not here. it's just us.

my understanding is complex and intelligent means the capacity to create technology for colonization.

Our sun is relatively young in the lifespan of the universe. There are far older stars with far older Earth-like planets, which should in theory mean civilizations far more advanced than our own. As an example, let?s compare our 4.54 billion-year-old Earth to a hypothetical 8 billion-year-old Planet X.

http://waitbutwhy.com/wp-content/upl...e-1024x416.png

Planet X

If Planet X has a similar story to Earth, let?s look at where their civilization would be today (using the orange timespan as a reference to show how huge the green timespan is):
http://waitbutwhy.com/wp-content/upl...2-1024x537.png

Planet X vs Earth

The technology and knowledge of a civilization only 1,000 years ahead of us could be as shocking to us as our world would be to a medieval person. A civilization 1 million years ahead of us might be as incomprehensible to us as human culture is to chimpanzees. And Planet X is 3.4 billion years ahead of us?

There?s something called The Kardashev Scale, which helps us group intelligent civilizations into three broad categories by the amount of energy they use:

A Type I Civilization has the ability to use all of the energy on their planet. We?re not quite a Type I Civilization, but we?re close (Carl Sagan created a formula for this scale which puts us at a Type 0.7 Civilization).

A Type II Civilization can harness all of the energy of their host star. Our feeble Type I brains can hardly imagine how someone would do this, but we?ve tried our best, imagining things like a Dyson Sphere.

http://waitbutwhy.com/wp-content/upl...-1024x1024.png

Dyson Sphere

A Type III Civilization blows the other two away, accessing power comparable to that of the entire Milky Way galaxy.

If this level of advancement sounds hard to believe, remember Planet X above and their 3.4 billion years of further development. If a civilization on Planet X were similar to ours and were able to survive all the way to Type III level, the natural thought is that they?d probably have mastered inter-stellar travel by now, possibly even colonizing the entire galaxy.

One hypothesis as to how galactic colonization could happen is by creating machinery that can travel to other planets, spend 500 years or so self-replicating using the raw materials on their new planet, and then send two replicas off to do the same thing. Even without traveling anywhere near the speed of light, this process would colonize the whole galaxy in 3.75 million years, a relative blink of an eye when talking in the scale of billions of years:
http://waitbutwhy.com/wp-content/upl...ize-Galaxy.png
Colonize Galaxy

Source: Scientific American: ?Where Are They?

Continuing to speculate, if 1% of intelligent life survives long enough to become a potentially galaxy-colonizing Type III Civilization, our calculations above suggest that there should be at least 1,000 Type III Civilizations in our galaxy alone?and given the power of such a civilization, their presence would likely be pretty noticeable. And yet, we see nothing, hear nothing, and we?re visited by no one.

And from the same article you plagiarized which you have conveniently omitted and added your own nonsense:

We have no answer to the Fermi Paradox?the best we can do is ?possible explanations.? And if you ask ten different scientists what their hunch is about the correct one, you?ll get ten different answers.


The Fermi Paradox - Wait But Why

all im gonna say is the OP better be right. cause if there is any life that can contact us, we are totally screwed. same as when the spanish met the aztecs.

didnt end well for the aztecs.