aliens don't exist

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Fermi paradox, named after Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life and various high estimates for their probability (such as some optimistic estimates for the Drake equation).[1][2]

The following are some of the facts and hypotheses that together serve to highlight the apparent contradiction:

• There are billions of stars in the Milky Way similar to the Sun.[3][4]
• With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets in a circumstellar habitable zone.[5]
• Many of these stars, and hence their planets, are much older than the Sun.[6][7] If the Earth is typical, some may have developed intelligent life long ago.
• Some of these civilizations may have developed interstellar travel, a step humans are investigating now.
• Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.[8]
• And since many of the stars similar to the Sun are billions of years older, Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial civilizations, or at least their probes.[9]
• However, there is no convincing evidence that this has happened.[8]

Fermi paradox - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maybe intelligent life is extremely rare. Wolf like and dolphin like creatures are everywhere, but human like creatures are 1 in a trillion shot.

Or maybe we're the first. The most advanced and other intelligent alien species are less advanced.

Or maybe we're the only intelligent species in the universe.

Or maybe the vastness of the universe renders that "paradox" moot.

 

[james bond]

Or maybe the vastness of the universe renders that "paradox" moot.

This is why you shouldn't be in S&T with that kind of "fairy tale" logic. The true science-minded know it takes life to make life. If we could see a single-cell pop up from non-life, then you would not only make the paradox moot, but would win the argument, be world famous, and the majority would believe in much life elsewhere.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is why you shouldn't be in S&T with that kind of "fairy tale" logic. The true science-minded know it takes life to make life. If we could see a single-cell pop up from non-life, then you would not only make the paradox moot, but would win the argument, be world famous, and the majority would believe in much life elsewhere.

No stupid, you are not following. This is a discussion for rational adults, not manbabies whose minds are handicapped by iron age mythology. The universe may be so vast, that even if there have been a billion advanced civilizations, it's not only possible they never traveled the universe, but also possible that, even if they have, they have not encountered earth.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

No stupid, you are not following. This is a discussion for rational adults, not manbabies whose minds are handicapped by iron age mythology. The universe may be so vast, that even if there have been a billion advanced civilizations, it's not only possible they never traveled the universe, but also possible that, even if they have, they have not encountered earth.

It's not about them finding us, it's about us finding them.

If a alien civilization existed a billion years ago, that gave their EM transmissions a billion light years to travel. That's a huge sphere even by universe sizes.

Our EM transmission sphere is tiny as it's only a hundred years old or so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If a alien civilization existed a billion years ago, that gave their EM transmissions a billion light years to travel. That's a huge sphere even by universe sizes

But you are overlooking something: the exponential weakening of those transmissions. Twice as far = 4 times weaker. 1 billion times as far = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times weaker. Would we even be able to pick that out of the background noise?

 

[zaangalewa]

1. the path to the planet on which intelligent life is possible about 5 million light years.
2.according to modern classical physics of Einstein
- the speed of light is limited and the time depends on the speed of movement
- a "hole in space" is theoretically possible, but time depends on speed and gravity

3 ... Imagine
Someone creates a hole in space
astronauts jump into this hole and get to the planet instantly .. But the planet is 5 million light years away.
They smoke cigarettes for 3 minutes and immediately return to Earth.

============
How long will it take?
1. For astronauts 3 minutes
2. For the inhabitants of the Earth = 5 million years + 5 million years + 3 minutes
about 10 million years.

=======
now let's imagine that aliens want to conquer the Earth, they are located 5 million light years from Earth ...
their troops will return to their planet in 10 million years. Their civilization will disappear.

aliens don't exist

That's by the way the most mysterious thing at all: Why for heavens sake do you think aliens would like to conquer us?

The other problem is not half as mysterious: 2 entangled particles for example act as if they would be the same - independent whether they are 5 million lightyears far from each other. If you change the spin of one of the 2 entangled particles here then this changes also the sin - ah sorry: "spin" - of the particle which is 5 million lightyears far away. The only problem: To take a look whether this really had happened needs 5 million years or longer. In my words: It looks like as if between this entangled particles exist no space at all - although they are able to be 5 million lightyears far from each other.

The problem is: We don't now what we don't know - but perhaps exists indeed a shortcut. A science fiction idea which I have now could it be for example to produce an anti-existence from you with negative energy - we could unify you with your anti-existence so you would not exist any longer because you had no energy. And then we could revert this operation and separate you and your anti-existence in any place and time of the universe - for example now 5 million lightyears far away. But I'm not sure whether you really like to meet your anti-existence (or whether we all together would like this at all) and to become a nothing only on reason to travel to a planet 5 million lightyears far from here where possibly the food is bad.

 

[Turtlesoup]

1. the path to the planet on which intelligent life is possible about 5 million light years.
2.according to modern classical physics of Einstein
- the speed of light is limited and the time depends on the speed of movement
- a "hole in space" is theoretically possible, but time depends on speed and gravity

3 ... Imagine
Someone creates a hole in space
astronauts jump into this hole and get to the planet instantly .. But the planet is 5 million light years away.
They smoke cigarettes for 3 minutes and immediately return to Earth.

============
How long will it take?
1. For astronauts 3 minutes
2. For the inhabitants of the Earth = 5 million years + 5 million years + 3 minutes
about 10 million years.

=======
now let's imagine that aliens want to conquer the Earth, they are located 5 million light years from Earth ...
their troops will return to their planet in 10 million years. Their civilization will disappear.

aliens don't exist

Aliens exist----we have proof of them existing----Bacteria from space.

 

[zaangalewa]

Domino
The speed of light is not limited !!!
It’s only limited to us and our understanding

A very advanced race can manipulate worm holes and go anywhere

The speed of light in vacuum is always only the same speed - lightspeed - independent from the speed of any observer (whoever this is) within the universe.

 

[zaangalewa]

Aliens exist----we have proof of them existing----Bacteria from space.

Bacteriae are part of the evolution on planet Earth. If anywhere a second evolution of life did happen - why exist there bacteriae?

 

[zaangalewa]

I dont understand why you think that proves aliens dont exist.

I guess he thought "exist here on our planet"

 

[zaangalewa]

Humans are only 200,000 yrs old and real science has only occurred the last 300 years

Just imagine a race that is 2 million yrs old
Yikes

The best ideas for "real science" came from the ancient Greek culture. I have here a still not read book, German translation, from Carlo Rivelli "Die Geburt der Wissenschaft. Anaximander und sein Erbe" - "The birth of science. Anaximander and his heritage." It's one of this books like jewels. I'm shy to open it and to read its secrets. To read such a book has to be celebrated in a good atmosphere.

Our evolution started by the way about 7 million years ago, 1.5 million years old is the eldest campfire which we found - but it's possible we use campfires since 2 million years - and about 70,000 years ago we died out - nearly. About 70,000 years ago existed less than 1000 individuals who are our all ancestors. And about 20,000 years ago wolves took care of us and became dogs.

 

[zaangalewa]

Hundreds of billions of planets and moons ??
They exist in many places

90% of all suns are too small for life. Nearly all places in the galaxy - specially where are the most stars - have a high radiation. Earth and moon are a double planet - what means the moon had been a part of the Earth and goes slowly - extremly slowly - away. The moon reduced the rotation speed of the Earth from about 8 hours to 24 hours. The Earth has astonishingly enough water and energy for an evolution - but also not too much water and not too much energy. And so on and so on. => The probability for life is nearly 0.

So what result gives the calculaion "nearly endless possibilities * nearly no chance at all"? We know the result is 1 or higher because we exist. But is it higher?

 

[Quasar44]

zaangalewa
Earth type planets are very common and billions of them exist in just our galaxy

 

[Quasar44]

zaangalewa
The Greeks were very very limited
They did not know modern science at all

Modern and real science is only a couple of centuries old
You did have Newton and Galileo much earlier but it’s only been around a short time

 

[Quasar44]

Greeks had zero modern instruments and many of what they said was wrong

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

90% of all suns are too small for life. Nearly all places in the galaxy - specially where are the most stars - have a high radiation. Earth and moon are a double planet - what means the moon had been a part of the Earth and goes slowly - extremly slowly - away. The moon reduced the rotation speed of the Earth from about 8 hours to 24 hours. The Earth has astonishingly enough water and energy for an evolution - but also not too much water and not too much energy. And so on and so on. => The probability for life is nearly 0.

So what result gives the calculaion "nearly endless possibilities * nearly no chance at all"? We know the result is 1 or higher because we exist. But is it higher?

That's all specious nonsense, for two reasons.
1) You are just engaging in a reiteration of Hoyle"s Fallacy or Zeno's paradox of motion. Via this specious reasoning, you can force the "probability" of any event to approach zero. Any event, ever. Just start arbitrarily assigning probability to the prior events leading to the current event, and voila: probability virtually zero. See a rock on the ground? Arbitrarily assign a probability to its initial formation. Then to its breaking off in that shape. Then to the events that occured to cause it to end up at your location. Suddenly, the probability the rock exists at the time and place is zero. Obviously this is useless fallacy. Just as we know the arrow does reach its target, despite Zeno's specious paradox of motion.

2) You are only speaking to probabilities of life being EXACTLY the same as life here on a planet EXACTLY the same as ours. Not the probability of life existing or forming at a time and place in general.

Fallacy wrapped in fallacy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For those who are not familiar with Zeno's Paradox of Motion:

It concludes that movement is impossible. An object cannot move from point A to point B, because, first, the object has to go half the distance from A to B. Then half the rest of the distance. Then half the rest. And so on, and so forth. This implies that point B will never be reached, as there will always be a remaining distance, half of which must be traversed before anything else can occur.

We crawled out from under this specious paradox when we learned how to sum infinite series of numbers. But it was always easy to fire an arrow through the air to its target to show the conclusion of this argument was absurd.

Hoyle's Fallacy, Zeno's Paradox, and the specious reasoning employed by zaangalewa are fundamentally no different. Just arbitrarily assign probabilities to arbitrarily chosen events leading directly to the event in question; any probabilities less than 100% will do. If you collect enough of these arbitrary declarations, you can make the event in question have a virtually zero probability. This is unbounded. You have no reason whatsoever to stop before the probability reaches zero. If you cannot make it to almost zero, I will just add some more arbitrarily chosen events and multiply your number by those arbitrarily designated probabilities. Rinse, repeat. We will get to virtually zero, eventually. For ANY event. No matter how common or rare the event seems to be, in reality

Which definitively tells us this is meaningless pap.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just to further illustrate how useless and specious this old parlor trick favored by the Creationists is:

Event in question: formation of life on earth

Now, choose any arbitrary events you like that directly led to the existence of Earth and the life on it. Really! ANY. Formation of the Sun, the earth, the Moon, configuration of our Solar System, the chemicals present on earth, anything you like.

Now, assign each a probability of 99%. 99% seems pretty high, right? And event that is 99% likely to happen would almost always happen, right?

Welp, now multiply your probabilities. If you gather enough of these causal events, guess what happens? The probability of the "event in question" tends to ZERO. That's right. I can assign 99% probability to arbitrarily chosen events leading directly to the event in question, and end up with a virtually ZERO probability of the event in question.

The curve, for all x>0, looks like this, with the y-axis representing the probability of the "event in question", and x being the number of arbitrarily chosen, causal events with probability of 99%:

 

[zaangalewa]

That's all specious nonsense,

That's what?`

for two reasons.
1) You are just engaging in a reiteration of Hoyle"s Fallacy or Zeno's paradox of motion.

?

Via this specious reasoning, you can force the "probability" of any event to approach zero. Any event, ever.

?

Just start arbitrarily assigning probability to the prior events leading to the current event, and voila: probability virtually zero. See a rock on the ground? Arbitrarily assign a probability to its initial formation. Then to its breaking off in that shape. Then to the events that occured to cause it to end up at your location. Suddenly, the probability the rock exists at the time and place is zero. Obviously this is useless fallacy. Just as we know the arrow does reach its target, despite Zeno's specious paradox of motion.

You think we "apes" had been able to make fire on a water planet - if we had been evolved there from what kind of animal exactly?

What I said is very simple: "~0 * ~oo >= 1" That's what we "know" because we exist. But we just simple do not know what the result could be from "nearly endless possiblities" * "nearly no chance that this will happen". It could be any result.

2) You are only speaking to probabilities of life being EXACTLY the same as life here on a planet EXACTLY the same as ours.

I don't know any other life.

Not the probability of life existing or forming at a time and place in general.

Fallacy wrapped in fallacy.

¿Fallacy? ... ¿Trugschluß? ... "Fallacy wrapped in fallacy" is a nice sentence (specially because it could happen that two wrapped fallacies could also produce a truth) - but it is nonsense in this context here. If you never saw a butterlfly in your life and you never learned anyting about then this would change nothing in the existence of butterflies. You could just simple not imagine that such a creature exists. But this also changes nothing in the thought that the sphere where water is able to be fluid is very near to their surface in case of 90 % of all suns. And this suns make also heavy protuberances from time to time which would disinfect every form of life which we know.

 

[zaangalewa]

zaangalewa
Earth type planets are very common and billions of them exist in just our galaxy

What I doubt because as I said: we are the double planet system Earth+Moon. If this is an important factor then the probability for life in other solar systems sinks dramatically.