Why are we alone in Universe?

[QuestioningMind]

Consider the Fermi paradox, i.e., the "absence of recordable life in cosmos,
while the abiogenesis has to happen.'' The official point of view is that the
Fermi paradox not only exists but is unsolved yet. Romantic people look at
night at star systems and think that the sky is full of life because the
chance for Earth to get alive was the same as the chance for any suitable
planet to bloom with living organisms. It is a romantic delusion. The Earth is
alive, and Mars is dead only because the people are born on Earth. Consider
ten planets suitable for life. The Earth and Mars are among them. The current
time is 4 000 000 000 BC. If it is given that there will be one single living
planet in this group of worlds with a probability of 30 %, then the
likelihood that the Earth gets alive is exactly this 30 %, as the humans must
be exactly there, where the life has begun. But Mars has not this advantage;
hence, the probability of Mars getting life is (1/10)*30 %=3 %. The
difference between 3 % and 30 % is explained by Luck. I have written a
solution to the Fermi Paradox because the famous Drake equation uses the wrong
value for a planet's probability to get a life. The latter was equated to 100 \%.
But I tell you that the actual figure is noticeably less; in the above
argument, it is less than 3 % even for a planet perfectly suitable to start
life. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12946.73923

We can discuss the new whereabouts about aliens, but please give me credit and honor for solution of the specific problem: Fermi Paradox. Let me feel good, at least one sec.

Who the heck is making the ridiculous claim that Earth is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it? That would be like saying that because I looked out the window of my house and didn't see another living human being that I've concluded that I'm the only living human being on the planet. Logic dictates that I should refrain from jumping to any conclusions until I've had a chance to actually leave my house and search the entire planet for signs of another living human being.

 

[Suave]

Consider the Fermi paradox, i.e., the "absence of recordable life in cosmos,
while the abiogenesis has to happen.'' The official point of view is that the
Fermi paradox not only exists but is unsolved yet. Romantic people look at
night at star systems and think that the sky is full of life because the
chance for Earth to get alive was the same as the chance for any suitable
planet to bloom with living organisms. It is a romantic delusion. The Earth is
alive, and Mars is dead only because the people are born on Earth. Consider
ten planets suitable for life. The Earth and Mars are among them. The current
time is 4 000 000 000 BC. If it is given that there will be one single living
planet in this group of worlds with a probability of 30 %, then the
likelihood that the Earth gets alive is exactly this 30 %, as the humans must
be exactly there, where the life has begun. But Mars has not this advantage;
hence, the probability of Mars getting life is (1/10)*30 %=3 %. The
difference between 3 % and 30 % is explained by Luck. I have written a
solution to the Fermi Paradox because the famous Drake equation uses the wrong
value for a planet's probability to get a life. The latter was equated to 100 \%.
But I tell you that the actual figure is noticeably less; in the above
argument, it is less than 3 % even for a planet perfectly suitable to start
life. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12946.73923

We can discuss the new whereabouts about aliens, but please give me credit and honor for solution of the specific problem: Fermi Paradox. Let me feel good, at least one sec.

I am guessing microbiology might be common place throughout our universe, but I seriously doubt there are very many sentiment beings as intelligent as us big brained great apes who have highly evolved on Earth as among the most indigent life in the entire universe,

As far as I know, we primates have the most complex brains and best depth perception of all mammalian species . I am unaware of there being any other types of animals more intelligent than highly evolved primates like us great apes

The exo-planetary system best known by Earth's astronomers, namely the Trappist planetary system, astronomers have studied its habitable zone planets' densities suggesting there are a few water worlds there where microbiology or aquatic life could possibly live, but intelligent primate life could not likely live there on these oceanic planets.

The Wow! Signal is the only highly probable intelligent extraterrestrial signal received in the nearly 100 year history of radio telescopes on Earth, this suggests to me from my perspective, there are maybe only one other civilization capable of radio broadcasting in our galactic arm of the Milky Way,

Astroneer Alberto Caballero had figured the source of the Wow! Signal may have been in the proximity of a Sun-like star 1800 light years away from Earth. assuming there were on average one radio broadcasting civilization each 1800 light years across the Milky Way, there would be some few thousand total radio broadcasting planetary civilizations in our galaxy. That is not very many, considering there are approximately 100 billion planets in the galaxy

 

[Suave]

I disagree with you, i believe there are inteligent life in a lot of places in this universe, and they may have visited us already.

The odds of an extraterrestrial carbon based life form travelling to Earth by spacecraft is nearly zero, because as an object with mass such as a spaceship travels faster, its relativistic mass increases. Eventually, as a spaceship approaches an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, most of the energy to propel the spacecraft will be expended in increasing the spacecraft's relativistic mass instead of accelerating its velocity. This means that the speed of light is a universal speed limit which nothing of significant mass could even come anywhere near close to approaching. Because of the vastness of space between solar systems and the fact that spaceships can't accelerate to anywhere near the speed of light, I believe that interstellar space travel with significant mass is impossible. Humans have most likely never interacted with any extraterrestrial beings who are limited to conventional space travel nor will likely ever come into contact with extraterrestrials by conventional space travel. Communications with electromagnetic waves could travel at light speed; but the nearest habitable star systems are dozens of light years away. It would take either us or extraterrestrials many years to reach our nearest solar systems with either radio or light signals.

 

[questfortruth]

I am guessing

Elon Musk, if it is you, please make the world better. Please pray to Lord for that and help us with your funds and ideas.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The odds of an extraterrestrial carbon based life form travelling to Earth by spacecraft is nearly zero, because as an object with mass such as a spaceship travels faster, its relativistic mass increases. Eventually, as a spaceship approaches an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, most of the energy to propel the spacecraft will be expended in increasing the spacecraft's relativistic mass instead of accelerating its velocity. This means that the speed of light is a universal speed limit which nothing of significant mass could even come anywhere near close to approaching. Because of the vastness of space between solar systems and the fact that spaceships can't accelerate to anywhere near the speed of light, I believe that interstellar space travel with significant mass is impossible. Humans have most likely never interacted with any extraterrestrial beings who are limited to conventional space travel nor will likely ever come into contact with extraterrestrials by conventional space travel. Communications with electromagnetic waves could travel at light speed; but the nearest habitable star systems are dozens of light years away. It would take either us or extraterrestrials many years to reach our nearest solar systems with either radio or light signals.

My comment just reflex my personal view on it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The odds of an extraterrestrial carbon based life form travelling to Earth by spacecraft is nearly zero, because as an object with mass such as a spaceship travels faster, its relativistic mass increases. Eventually, as a spaceship approaches an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, most of the energy to propel the spacecraft will be expended in increasing the spacecraft's relativistic mass instead of accelerating its velocity. This means that the speed of light is a universal speed limit which nothing of significant mass could even come anywhere near close to approaching. Because of the vastness of space between solar systems and the fact that spaceships can't accelerate to anywhere near the speed of light, I believe that interstellar space travel with significant mass is impossible. Humans have most likely never interacted with any extraterrestrial beings who are limited to conventional space travel nor will likely ever come into contact with extraterrestrials by conventional space travel. Communications with electromagnetic waves could travel at light speed; but the nearest habitable star systems are dozens of light years away. It would take either us or extraterrestrials many years to reach our nearest solar systems with either radio or light signals.

Not to mention the problem of radiation. I have heard people propose hibernation to the point of freezing an individual. The problem with that is both external radiation, primarily from cosmic radiation which is not easy to stop and internal radiation. We have a fair amount of potassium in our systems and one of the isotopes is radioactive. In normal life that is not a problem but if a person is frozen for a thousand years to make a long journey he will find his body facing a thousand years of internal radioactive decay almost instantaneously.

Unless as totally new physics is discovered, and there may not be such a physics, it looks as if interstellar travel is off of the books.

 

[rational experiences]

As earth O is a planet only with human claims I own dominion over all created creation by my thinking behaviour.

I name.
I conclude.

As humans. So I know it's my behaviour.

As all human's on earth live equally without human thesis and without machines. As biology only. That as a self biology never pre existed as conscious. Dies also. Conscious stops.

Apes own that proof by intensive human studies as a human chosen study. Not chosen by the ape. Who has no say in your abuse of their life form.

Just as humans born from biological sex have no say. As adults the human science inventor built a machine. Baby human non existent in that scientists status.

Yet you were all born a human baby.

How a human knows what a human liar is.

Then you'd human argue behaviour as humans invented and wanted machines.

Behaviour.

You know immaculate heavens O earth owned dense gas cloud mass released from volcanic earth.

As our life is only on earth.

O as planets pressure pushes held sealed cooled all radiation inside of it. In O zero space.

Hence space vacuum stretch pulled at dense gas cooled dense gas so space empty came into clear form within a clear gas.

Heavens owns universal plane says a human mind.

Our heavens gas took over the whole emptiness just surrounding earth.

Reactive heavens is our universe.

Cloud term and light.

Told to humans by humans. No machines Involved.

Then humans wanted to practice AI intelligence as science. Built designed machines from a non existing Phi.

As you human man calculated as the human what Phi was. It did not exist.

Why Phi not existing attacked biological life as AI term created false vision by cold cloud mass burn then re cooling of same cloud mass.

AI inherits machine status as destroyed man's image on ground.

Reason daily new ground mass as one machines history gets burnt up. As a machine in science occult reality does not exist. He falsified cooling artificially to own machine.

Position destroyer. No other type of machine is safe.

As clouds said the human scientist not the ground owned image. Was a humans owned science teaching. Cooled transmitters.

Image off ground was the machines destroyed physical body.

Light exists as a burning gas.

So if a machine is propelled across space ours.... with a gas burning our space is clear gas. Would be trying to set alight clear gas to use extra propulsion to say O light only.

By humans forced calculus.

As a human said I deleted calculus.

As D the holy value said D was of no light with D light DD balances. Two not one.

D is not man's O calculus. Just basic first human natural observed details on earth only as lights advice.

For biology only. As we aren't machines.

If man entered space without machine then all life on earth is destroyed. Another expressed comparison of self human biology to machine fake thesis about unnatural use of light in human sciences.

As earths planet body isn't alight. It is however alight inside your machines sciences or to own build inventions.

As you displaced natural biologies Human light to use and apply human sciences.

Machine theists. Life's biological destroyer. We live in water mass stretched thin but in density as total its body is immense as life support protection from burning light.

Evaporation one droplet of water said that droplet by multitudes of droplets kept biology safe.

Why droplets returning back to the ground are dense trying to cool water used already to stop falling gas burning. As a gas uses water to be a non burning gas the reasons.

Relative to a human owning a machine body claiming it's a human.

Then doing a reaction by machine claiming it's also a human.

Your mind is saying it's a non existing destroyed human in human memory everytime.

Yet in natural reality it's just earths mass not any human quote whatsoever. As humans knew invention machines had caused human life's removal.

A part of natural human memory. Why we haven't lived as a whole original human since as any one single human.

Theist human computer owner programmer says I have proven natural biological mind percentage is now gone out of humans biological conscious. By human memory computer programming identification.

As humans think self is a machine then their mind shifts and it says no the other human is a machines mind. As they think. As never do they quote self is the machine. Baby human biological conceived non theist.

Yet easily say it about inference adult as some other human.

Never the machine operators real aware status.

As humans conscious biological awareness is with our sexually conceived biological body. Body might be present.... yet control of biological mind in biology no longer isn't.

Mind is virtually computerised he says without being a machine. Is a humans aware biology confession. I'm aware of.

Not a human will control a machine with their mind. They programmed built the machine by being biological as the human controlling the operations of choices biological.

So displaced mind to allow machine operations. To act mechanically programmed to share all humans questions and answers.

First is natural human on earth. No machine. No speaking except in biologies presence.

 

[firedragon]

Who the heck is making the ridiculous claim that Earth is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it? That would be like saying that because I looked out the window of my house and didn't see another living human being that I've concluded that I'm the only living human being on the planet. Logic dictates that I should refrain from jumping to any conclusions until I've had a chance to actually leave my house and search the entire planet for signs of another living human being.

Is not that a good position to hold, "without empirical evidence I won't believe it"?

 

[wellwisher]

You misunderstand the issues here.
1. Atheism has literally nothing to do with the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.
2. Scientists and rational thinkers do not "want" there to be life. It is simply a strong possibility based on the available evidence. "Faith" has nothing to do with it.
3. "Hard lab proof" is not necessary to establish if something is possible or probable. However, we do have "hard lab proof" that life exists in the universe, so it isn't a major leap to propose other life. When the issue is god, we have no "hard lab proof" of gods in the first place, so that initial premise (that god exists) needs to be supported by HLP before we move any further (eg, which version of god, what they want us to do, etc)

"Reasons" not "excuses". No one is claiming that a specific type of life actually exists but we are unable to detect it (which is basically the god claim).

Unfortunately, this merely shows your lack of understanding of science, probability, evidence, etc.

Nope. The reason why we can't see life on other planets, if it is there, is because of distance and access. If we could safely survey and sample every planet, we would find any life that existed.
The the best explanation for why we can't detect god in any way is because he isn't there.

So what are you actually trying to say here, that there definitely isn't life elsewhere in the universe, or that there definitely is?

I am not saying there is life elsewhere in the universe or this is not life elsewhere in the universe. However, I am saying that the philosophy of science not only requires some hard proof of a claim, but it also requires at least a second team also has to verify this with its own first hand data. We do not have this, when it comes to the theory of life elsewhere in the universe, besides earth. All we have is faith in statistics and the current theory of life, neither of which may be as complete, as we wish to believe. Science is a work on progressed yet each generation thinks their contemporary state of the art is the final answer.

The analogy for life of other planets is the the existence of the unicorn. The unicorn is essentially a small horse with a single horn coming out of its forehead and maybe fancy colors. If we assume the statistical model of life is valid, and not just a way model the unknown, there should be finite odds for the mutations, that forms a unicorn, from a horse, since it only requires head bone and fur extrapolation.

So why not conclude the unicorns are out there, and we could find one, if we look hard enough and long enough, as predicted by the oracle? Where is your full faith in the oracle? Science uses the dull side of the two edge oracle sword, to police itself. This is an example of its own dual standard.

I used to be a development Chemical Engineer in my younger days. Often when modeling dynamic and continuous flow chemical processes, you would end up with a large number of simultaneous equations connected to the various properties of the materials being processed. These chemical and thermodynamic properties change with time and place, during continuous flow experiments, especially if there are reaction kinetics. Ideally, one would like to solve all the equations, together, in 3-D space, and then reduce this equation complexity to a simple math solution. However, it many of cases, the math would not shrink down, by direct or classic math means.

Numerical methods were invented to help solve such situations. These methods would use matrixes and computer iterations, where matrixes where ways to set up the math in a table, for the computer. The numerical method would be primed with an approximate solution, which could be anything reasonable, and would cycle and improve the matrix, over and over, until a steady state was reached. This could take many hours of computer time. Although this works, and often led to very good solutions, no engineer would just assumed nature works by iteration. It is always seen as tool and not a fact of nature.

Biologist got fooled into thinking their statistical approximation math method was more than a tool. This approximation method is misunderstood and appear to be assumed to be the underlying basis for life, since it can appear to solve problems, even where basic life logic is lacking. In iteration methods the classic math logic was lacking and it to pushes through.

With statistics you place any given set of parameters into a black box. All you need are the inputs and outputs. You covers your eyes, via the black box; bow before the oracle and doin't look. You are not allowed to think, since you cannot see, due to the black box. The statistical method does the same basic thing as the iteration method, approximating the mystery of the black box for you, like an oracle or fortune teller. The life sciences would not have gotten past observations and cataloging, if they could not use the blindman's prophesy tool as much as they do. Good for the tool but the tool is not life.

If you look at COVID and the use of statistical models, we inconvenienced the entire world and still loss lots of life. The oracle appears to be able to hit the target at the edge, but never hits the bull's eye; sweet spot. The ideal would be theory that is starting enough to allow each person to have their own unique fortune, instead of bulk fortune telling; one size fits all. Yet this bulk fortune telling is treated like it hit the bullseye. If the bio-theory was better in terms of logic, we would be closer to the unique fortune for all.

An analogy would be having the oracle of statistics design an automobile in a black box. It may work, but very few people could drive it or drive it safely, yet all would marvel that it even works, period. Faith in the oracle tells us to ignore the philosophy of science, and accept the output of the oracle with blind faith, even with lack of hard evidence. You are an unfaithful denier, if you do not go along with the half baked solutions, like with COVID. Politician live by the oracle since this gives them plausible deniability when they run scams.

Life on other planets is probably possible, but this is not based on statistical oracles or tools. Its is based on better conceptual logic, with the black box being open, so the logic that is needed more than just faith in a math oracle tool, that does not have to right to be blindly followed; COVID lockdowns. Politics, Marketing and Polling and Gambling all use the same black box as the life sciences. Sometimes these four application all get blended together making it hard to get pure science out of the predictions.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I am not saying there is life elsewhere in the universe or this is not life elsewhere in the universe. However, I am saying that the philosophy of science not only requires some hard proof of a claim, but it also requires at least a second team also has to verify this with its own first hand data. We do not have this, when it comes to the theory of life elsewhere in the universe, besides earth. All we have is faith in statistics and the current theory of life, neither of which may be as complete, as we wish to believe. Science is a work on progressed yet each generation thinks their contemporary state of the art is the final answer.

With the vast distances involved, it is unlikely we will be able to answer the question, and probably for a long time even if we do develop much better ways of assessing where life might exist, particularly the intelligent sort. But this alone should mean we can't say either way, and given that life does exist, here on Earth, and for a long time before humans entered the scene, it seems more plausible that life will exist elsewhere. Rather than thinking we are the exception - which is a typical self-aggrandising attitude humans tend to have, as shown by the many who see humans as being so much better than all other life.

 

[viole]

My contribution is the scientific solution of the Fermi Paradox, nothing else or more.

I have a plastic copy of the Nobel prize medal. Would you like it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[QuestioningMind]

Is not that a good position to hold, "without empirical evidence I won't believe it"?

That's precisely what I said... you shouldn't make the claim that Earth is the only planet in the universe that supports life without any empirical evidence to back it up.

 

[firedragon]

That's precisely what I said... you shouldn't make the claim that Earth is the only planet in the universe that supports life without any empirical evidence to back it up.

Absolutely true.

But is not the flip side also reasonable to say "since there is no evidence to prove life exists in other planets", I will believe it does?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

A blade of grass is life.
Intelligence is something of a subjective term. Primates, crows, octopuses all show superior problem solving abilities than dogs, but all mammals appear better at it than insects, who are better at it than plants.
Intelligence appears related to problem solving and purposeful munipulation of the environment. It is likely that this evolved in stages. Humans ability to learn and pass on information to other humans makes us very unique, but certainly this was a development in progress.

Yes, a blade of grass is life and comes from grass seeds.
Animals/ birds go by instinct.
Intelligence does Not come from non-intelligence.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That's very much a possibility, and combine that with the struggles intelligence poses like self-destruction through war and environmental degradation, it's very possible not much life at all ever reaches a point where anything like interstellar travel could be possible. Not that I discount that idea entirely...it's more interesting that way.

Intelligence and wickedness can go hand in hand ( self-destruction through war and environmental degradation )
Intelligence and righteousness can also go hand in hand ( Micah 4:3-4; Genesis 1:28 )
Without the wicked who knows at what point mankind could inhabit other planets.
Since the 'wicked will be destroyed forever' as taught at Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22 then only righteous people will be left here who will Not learn war any more - Isaiah 2:4.

 

[Alley Oop]

Consider the Fermi paradox, i.e., the "absence of recordable life in cosmos,
while the abiogenesis has to happen.'' The official point of view is that the
Fermi paradox not only exists but is unsolved yet. Romantic people look at
night at star systems and think that the sky is full of life because the
chance for Earth to get alive was the same as the chance for any suitable
planet to bloom with living organisms. It is a romantic delusion. The Earth is
alive, and Mars is dead only because the people are born on Earth. Consider
ten planets suitable for life. The Earth and Mars are among them. The current
time is 4 000 000 000 BC. If it is given that there will be one single living
planet in this group of worlds with a probability of 30 %, then the
likelihood that the Earth gets alive is exactly this 30 %, as the humans must
be exactly there, where the life has begun. But Mars has not this advantage;
hence, the probability of Mars getting life is (1/10)*30 %=3 %. The
difference between 3 % and 30 % is explained by Luck. I have written a
solution to the Fermi Paradox because the famous Drake equation uses the wrong
value for a planet's probability to get a life. The latter was equated to 100 \%.
But I tell you that the actual figure is noticeably less; in the above
argument, it is less than 3 % even for a planet perfectly suitable to start
life. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12946.73923

We can discuss the new whereabouts about aliens, but please give me credit and honor for solution of the specific problem: Fermi Paradox. Let me feel good, at least one sec.

you are alone because you want to be alone. some relish in their misery - if nothing existed in the universe, they would still be *****ing. that's entertainment!

 

[GardenLady]

I find the Bible lets us know why we are alone in the universe. At least alone for the time being.
Alone because first the 'sin issue' that started on Earth would have to be settled here on Earth.
Then, after the 'sin issue ' is settled after Jesus' thousand-year reign over Earth, then there could be intelligent life elsewhere, but not sooner.

Why do you think the Bible demonstrates this? Perhaps the Bible is about human life on earth and our relationship with God. Why could you not accept that, if there is intelligent life on other planets, they have their own relationships with God, separate from those of humans?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Why do you think the Bible demonstrates this? Perhaps the Bible is about human life on earth and our relationship with God. Why could you not accept that, if there is intelligent life on other planets, they have their own relationships with God, separate from those of humans?

Intelligent life elsewhere would have already proved faithful life existed elsewhere, thus No need to settle the 'sin issue' here on earth because it would have already been settled elsewhere.
Their relationship with God would be a sinless relationship, so No need to settle the 'sin issue' elsewhere.
Once the 'sin issue' is settled here on earth, it will never have to be, or need to be, settled any where else.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That's precisely what I said... you shouldn't make the claim that Earth is the only planet in the universe that supports life without any empirical evidence to back it up.

To me, 'sin' here on Earth is the evidence to back it up.
Since here (Earth) shows that if faithful life (sinless life) existed elsewhere there would be No need to settle a sin issue that was already settled elsewhere.
Once the ' sin issue ' is settled here on Earth then there can be intelligent life elsewhere.

 

[QuestioningMind]

To me, 'sin' here on Earth is the evidence to back it up.
Since here (Earth) shows that if faithful life (sinless life) existed elsewhere there would be No need to settle a sin issue that was already settled elsewhere.
Once the ' sin issue ' is settled here on Earth then there can be intelligent life elsewhere.

First you'd need to demonstrate that 'sin' is anything other than a manmade concept. Even if you could all you'd have evidence for is that 'sin' exists, which in no way would eliminate the possibility of intelligent life on other planets.