What If We ARE Alone?

[ChemEngineer]

Even without the time element, if there were 100,000 of these conditions with each having a one in a 100,000 probability of existing, there would be less than a 50% probability of them all occurring more than once.

Maybe we ARE all alone in the universe.

1 in 10 to the 5th power to the 100,000th power is, shall we say, somewhat LESS than "a 50% probability" which you cited above. It is impossibly, absurdly impossible.

1 chance in 10 to the 50th is impossible. 10 to the 50th power grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the diameter of our solar system out to Pluto. Now imagine getting in a sand burrowing spaceship and taking your choice of the 15 spheres full of sand and going millions of miles before selecting 1 grain of sand that is unique.

Not gonna happen.

It's far worse with synthesizing proteins of which humans have over 20,000.
Titin is a protein in your muscles with 33,450 amino acid residues. Ask one of the silly atheists what an amino acid residue is and what is the likelihood of 1 chance in 10 to the 65,000th power. They can only respond with foolishness and ad hominems.

 

[ChemEngineer]

We are alone.
The Brilliant Creator made this universe just for us. When you study the science, it's obvious.
The science pointing this out was preceded by the revelations in the Holy Bible written many centuries before humans became so very sophisticated and advanced.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
First Sentence in the first Chapter of the First Book.

Now the complexity of the human body, of atomic structure, of the Anthropic Principle, of the atomic reactor which gives us life, the sun, of the electromagnetic spectrum, of all these things and more there is profound evidence of the Hand of the Brilliant Creator in whom an overwhelming majority of Nobel Laureates in the sciences believe. Clue: They are not stupid. And they know things.

Beyond these considerations is this. IF, hypothetically speaking, there were some highly intelligent E.T., they would statistically be located over a billion light years away. Radiocommunications in either direction could never arrive to them from us or vice versa.

BUT IF THEY COULD, humans could not read hieroglyphics written by other humans until the Rosetta Stone was discovered, with three different languages giving the same message. So it is inconceivable that we could read some coded message in an unknown language from hypothetical E.T. We hear whales shrieking in the oceans and they have the largest brains on earth and we have no idea what they are saying. Q.E.D.

BUT IF WE COULD read whatever it is E.T. sent to us, it would be of no value because their biology and life practices would be so extraordinarily different from ours it would be like us communicating with the deepest fish in the ocean, asking about diseases and cures and politics and faith.

So the United States wasted a couple hundred million dollars sending the interstellar probe with its gold record, in hopes of E.T. finding it and playing it. Thanks for wasting all that money, Carl Sagan. You could have argued against it, but no, instead you and your wife profited from it and quite handsomely no doubt.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Then we need to develop interstellar travel faster so we can grab the entire galaxy before other intelligent life evolves.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Here are some thoughts about the STATISTICAL likelihood of life existing outside of Earth. It seems to me that we may be looking through the wrong end of a telescope by presuming that because life exists on Earth, it MUST exist elsewhere in the universe. What if it doesn't?

One way to look at this question is through statistical sampling. Let's hypothesize that there are 10 billion data points in the universe. Let's also take a random sample of a billion of these data points in order to determine the probability of life in the universe. A sample of this size is certainly enough to provide a confidence level of near certainty regarding its results. What if no life was detected in this sample? Wouldn't this lead us to conclude that there is no life in the universe?

Another way to look at this question is through probability calculations. A well-known equation is often used to assign probabilities to a finite number of conditions presumed to be necessary for life to exist and then essentially multiply them by infinity to produce a foregone conclusion of life existing elsewhere. However, since infinity is NOT a number, the universe can not contain an infinite number of data points. As a result, these calculations are based on a type of circular logic.

In addition, all of the conditions necessary for the creation of life are not known. But even if they were, the probability of them simultaneously occurring at the same time and place may be extremely small. Even without the time element, if there were 100,000 of these conditions with each having a one in a 100,000 probability of existing, there would be less than a 50% probability of them all occurring more than once.

Maybe we ARE all alone in the universe.

Where Did Intelligence Come From, and Does It Exist Only on Earth?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Billions of planets are in the Milky Way, they say. The first requirement for intelligent life is that a planet lies consistently in a habitable zone (in a circular or nearly circular orbit at a certain distance from its star). That would reduce the billions to what - maybe a billion?

Then myriad other requirements for such life must be met.

The likelihood that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists in this galaxy is infinitesimally small.

And even if intelligent life did exist on another planet, the likelihood that it could pay a visit to our planet is virtually impossible.

Super Bowl in a Dust Bowl

It was also almost impossible for life to appear on Earth. Randomly, it takes 2 to the 200,000th power of chemical interactions, whereas Earth only had 2 to the 200th power when life appeared. So even finding an Earth-like planet won't be very promising. Power-hungry preachers can make of this what they want.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Before 1990 there was no data to indicate that there were other planets elsewhere in the galaxy. Now we are told that there more than 5,000.

How many science fiction stories written before 1990 presumed that there were lots of explanets? Playing statistical games with millions of galaxies is total nonsense.

 

[Blues Man]

Here are some thoughts about the STATISTICAL likelihood of life existing outside of Earth. It seems to me that we may be looking through the wrong end of a telescope by presuming that because life exists on Earth, it MUST exist elsewhere in the universe. What if it doesn't?

One way to look at this question is through statistical sampling. Let's hypothesize that there are 10 billion data points in the universe. Let's also take a random sample of a billion of these data points in order to determine the probability of life in the universe. A sample of this size is certainly enough to provide a confidence level of near certainty regarding its results. What if no life was detected in this sample? Wouldn't this lead us to conclude that there is no life in the universe?

Another way to look at this question is through probability calculations. A well-known equation is often used to assign probabilities to a finite number of conditions presumed to be necessary for life to exist and then essentially multiply them by infinity to produce a foregone conclusion of life existing elsewhere. However, since infinity is NOT a number, the universe can not contain an infinite number of data points. As a result, these calculations are based on a type of circular logic.

In addition, all of the conditions necessary for the creation of life are not known. But even if they were, the probability of them simultaneously occurring at the same time and place may be extremely small. Even without the time element, if there were 100,000 of these conditions with each having a one in a 100,000 probability of existing, there would be less than a 50% probability of them all occurring more than once.

Maybe we ARE all alone in the universe.

10 billion?

Why such a small number?

Astronomers estimate that the universe could contain up to one septillion stars – which in numbers is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

 

[BackAgain]

P.S. A "random sample" is NOT random if a particular data point (Earth) is deliberately inserted into the sample.

Life exists in an amazing variety on Earth.

Therefore it seems very likely that (under similar circumstances) life could exist elsewhere in the universe.

I guess the big question is what are the chances of finding another spot in even this massive universe where all the special circumstances which allowed life to come into being, on Earth, also existing elsewhere?

Not just a Goldilocks zone. But water. The right gasses. The right spinning Liquid Metal core to generate an electromagnetic field surrounding the planet to protect it against the local star’s radiation, a relatively nearby super gas giant (like Jupiter) to protect the planet from disastrous impacts from meteors and comets, a moon that helps control ocean tides and so forth, the right initial chemical mix, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Mr Natural]

So we’re alone in the universe.

That’s a scary thought considering what kind of assholes we are.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Here are some thoughts about the STATISTICAL likelihood of life existing outside of Earth. It seems to me that we may be looking through the wrong end of a telescope by presuming that because life exists on Earth, it MUST exist elsewhere in the universe. What if it doesn't?

One way to look at this question is through statistical sampling. Let's hypothesize that there are 10 billion data points in the universe. Let's also take a random sample of a billion of these data points in order to determine the probability of life in the universe. A sample of this size is certainly enough to provide a confidence level of near certainty regarding its results. What if no life was detected in this sample? Wouldn't this lead us to conclude that there is no life in the universe?

Another way to look at this question is through probability calculations. A well-known equation is often used to assign probabilities to a finite number of conditions presumed to be necessary for life to exist and then essentially multiply them by infinity to produce a foregone conclusion of life existing elsewhere. However, since infinity is NOT a number, the universe can not contain an infinite number of data points. As a result, these calculations are based on a type of circular logic.

In addition, all of the conditions necessary for the creation of life are not known. But even if they were, the probability of them simultaneously occurring at the same time and place may be extremely small. Even without the time element, if there were 100,000 of these conditions with each having a one in a 100,000 probability of existing, there would be less than a 50% probability of them all occurring more than once.

Maybe we ARE all alone in the universe.

If you take the amount of what humans have observed of the night skies and concluded there's no life out there, it's the same as scooping up a pint of water out of the ocean, looking at it and saying, "There's no fish in the earth's water".

 

[Carl in Michigan]

So we’re alone in the universe.

That’s a scary thought considering what kind of assholes we are.

We're not alone.

 

[Mr Natural]

We're not alone.

Hope not.

 

[psikeyhackr]

10 billion?

Why such a small number?

Astronomers estimate that the universe could contain up to one septillion stars – which in numbers is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

As long as their are so many that the Klingons and Kzinti can't find us.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Brian Cox on why our solar system is utterly unique

 

[Captain Caveman]

The Sage of Main Street and jwoodie , too scientific retards

I quoted what Brian Cox said, and the retards give it a thumbs down. That's what happens when their family history is inbred with Neanderthals, stupid knuckle draggers

 

[james bond]

As a Christian, I didn't believe in life elsewhere and evolution, but the numbers do get to one not believing it as well as people who I went to high school with telling me so.

Here are the two smartest guys I had HS science with. They've become famous.

Gilman Louie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.linkedin.com/in/koichi-kodama-876a273b

I've gone back and forth over it here, but still... Fermi paradox.

 

[james bond]

Hope not.

I keep going back n' forth on this, but think it's possible there is life elsewhere. We haven't really got into exploring space. I think we've explored the moon enough, but still got Mars human exploration.

A similar comparison may be made to deep sea exploration. Our scientists didn't think there was life in the deepest part of the oceans, but were proved wrong -- Why Nasa is exploring the deepest oceans on Earth.