120 replies to this topic

[Nymh]

Yet something that never-endingly (is that a word? ) grows can be considered infinite, can it not?

No. Just because something can grow mindblowingly large does not make it infinite at any given point in time.

[Bone]

Yet something that never-endingly (is that a word? ) grows can be considered infinite, can it not?

What Nymh said. Also, the universe is eventually going to end in some way or another.

[Sweeney]

What Nymh said. Also, the universe is eventually going to end in some way or another.

But that doesn't make it non-infinite, either.

[Bone]

But that doesn't make it non-infinite, either.

I didn't say it did.

[Yung]

I'm going to try and slam this conversation back on track.

 

First I will state briefly that I personally believe that we, specifically our descendents, realize that time itself irrelevant and can pass freely through it. They know that they themselves create the universe and they take all of the matter in the universe together and ignite it as the big bang. Thus creating themselves.

Regarding the question posed, since you are referring to life as diverse as that which is found here on earth I say that it is not only plausible but likely.

There is plenty of math to disprove the existence of life else where but here is some math to show some odds:

There are around 200 billion stars in our galaxy and 200 billion galaxies in the universe.
Conservatively we can say that each star in our galaxy only contains 1 orbiting planet, our solar system has 9, we would have 200 billion planets in our galaxy..
Now we can assume other galaxies have similar makeup, this brings the total of potential life harboring planets to only 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Now we can state that only 1 out of every 1 million planets contains some form of life, probably it is in the simplest form. That will lower us to only 40,000,000,000,000,000 planets with life.
Now we can state that only 1 out of every 1 billion planets with life has intelligent life with technology similar to or more advanced than ours. This would be only 40 million planets with sentient life in our universe.

Please also take note of the fact that this probability is not taking into consideration moons. The amount of moons would only be adding to the statistics based on the known universe thus raising the probability that life exists elsewhere.

[Romy]

Life exists elsewhere? Probable.
As intelligent/more intelligent then us? Unlikely.
Visited us? Lolno.

Edited by Ivysaur, 13 September 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[Romy]

So, where are they. Your theory does not seem to fit observation. Or, they somehow ate all the lithium.

Just because they exist, doesn't mean they have visited us.
The closest star (Alpha Centauri) is 270,000 AU away. (We have a hard time getting to our moon.)
It's idiotic to think that any civilization has developed the technology to travel that far (let alone happen to stumble upon us).

Their existence does not depend on whether or not they have said hi.

Edited by Ivysaur, 13 September 2012 - 07:48 PM.

[James]

There is a magic flying ball of white in the sky at night.

[Romy]

Ramjets with fusion, certainly less than a million years the whole universe could have been explored by an elder civilization. Why they wouldn't have colonize, well, that is anyone's speculation.

Smarter than us, what a lack of understanding. We're already on the brink of our machines becoming smarter than us, the combination of machine and mind will, unless society falls, produced things we can't comprehend.

Anyone that thinks we can't be smarter, does not think. Anyone that does not think that aliens with a million years of civilization, or ten million have not thought of some new things, does not think.

Your theory is based on the assumptions that a) intelligent life does indeed exist and b) They have been around significantly longer then we have and c) they have developed technology capable of interstellar travel.

That's 3 variables.
Safest bet is to say that life exists elsewhere but has not developed the technology to even communicate with us.

But hey, to each their own.

[ElBastardoVerde]

Your theory is based on the assumptions that a) intelligent life does indeed exist and b) They have been around significantly longer then we have and c) they have developed technology capable of interstellar travel.

That's 3 variables.
Safest bet is to say that life exists elsewhere but has not developed the technology to even communicate with us.

But hey, to each their own.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a safe bet. The premise you're operating around (they're not as intelligent as we are/haven't developed the technology) is as "idiotic" as Coltom's argument is because we just simply don't know. With that being said, I believe in extraterrestrial life forms, and I do believe we have been visited.

Edited by destruct, 13 September 2012 - 08:20 PM.

[Romy]

No, "they" said it was just a test of the patriot missile system, even though why would you test a secret system when people could see the vapor trails? Oh, because "they" said so.

Ivy, given the age of the universe, given Asimov's postulate, you really think we're the first and brightest. .,.,.,.
Oh sweet Creator, there is no intelligent life on this planet.

*sigh*
I don't think we are the brightest coltom.
Another alien civilization may very well be smarter then us and not have developed interstellar travel.
You continue to based your "theories" on assumptions based on assumptions.

[ElBastardoVerde]

Ahem, I've not made an argument, I'm simply pointing out the observations, as many other science fiction writer before me has pondered. Bayesian probability, given that we exist, makes it certain that others exist.

No, you misunderstand, I wasn't saying your argument was idiotic. He said up there "It's idiotic to think that any civilization has developed the technology to travel that far (let alone happen to stumble upon us)."

[artificial]

Your theory is based on the assumptions that a) intelligent life does indeed exist and b) They have been around significantly longer then we have and c) they have developed technology capable of interstellar travel.

That's 3 variables.
Safest bet is to say that life exists elsewhere but has not developed the technology to even communicate with us.

But hey, to each their own.

That's what's always made me so sad. The universe is so old and there has to be intelligent life, so why haven't these advanced civilisations fired up the old worm hole and popped in to say hello?

[Drakonid]

Random crap

Way to type random numbers that prove absolutely nothing.

Ivysaur, your theory has just as many ifs as coltom's and it's just as retarded.

[ElBastardoVerde]

Numbers are how we make theories.

Theories are generated through lots of observance and trial, not just random numbers.

[artificial]

Theories are generated through lots of observance and trial, not just random numbers.

FALSE. On so many levels.

String-theory is a purely mathematical framework. We don't have any empirical evidence to support it. Doesn't mean it isn't a theory.

[Romy]

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a safe bet. The premise you're operating around (they're not as intelligent as we are/haven't developed the technology) is as "idiotic" as Coltom's argument is because we just simply don't know. With that being said, I believe in extraterrestrial life forms, and I do believe we have been visited.

Ivysaur, your theory has just as many ifs as coltom's and it's just as retarded.

I based my argument on the fact that any civilization developing the technology to travel 270K au and said civillization finding us is extremely ​unlikely.

Yet didn't you say above this post that "Life exists elsewhere? Probable.
As intelligent/more intelligent then us? Unlikely.
Visited us? Lolno. "

So you did say we were the most intelligent, now you say we are not. Oh, by the spectre of Harry Mudd this is confusing.

Tell you what, I'm bored with entering into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, since you can argue both sides of the issue, why don't you continue and tell us which sides wins.

Life on another planet does NOT necessarily have to be multicellular coltom.

Just because something is ALIVE doesn't make it intelligent. Your half-baked ideas are proof of that.

I'll leave you to your senility.

[Drakonid]

Numbers are how we make theories.

Not numbers you got by closing your eyes and hitting keys.

I based my argument on the fact that any civilization developing the technology to travel 270K au and said civillization finding us is extremely ​unlikely.

Other planets with sentient life forms are also extremely unlikely, yet you didn't discard the possibility.