[Closed] are there aliens?

Almost certainly. A bit like bacteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

I'm amazed people ask this!

What do you think we are?

We are living proof living that aliens (we) exist

Like ramblerz at weekends, all dressed the same, they dont seem to speak, show little emotions, walk or ramblze randomly,have huge life support sacks permanently attached to their backs,and when seen sitting down theyre always eating or drinking,oh and theyre always ugly.

Sometimes they chant their ramblerz song,

"wheres your bell"

[img] [/img]

i think it would be both naive and arrogant to think in the near infinite expanse of space there wouldn't be another planet, perhaps thousands of planets, with intelligent life on them. And it would look like this...

[img] [/img]

which for some reason, reminds me of

[img] [/img]

How the chuffing hell would we know what they look like?

near infinite

interesting concept ...

Pook - Member
i think it would be both naive and arrogant to think in the near infinite expanse of space there wouldn't be another [b]forum[/b], perhaps thousands of [b]forums[/b], with intelligent life on them.

Bit like Bikemagic then

There fixed it for you

Got to be life. Whether it is intelligent or we will even be able to prove it is another question.
Space is just so vast billions of galaxies that it has to be out there
Even the religious agree they just call it god 😉

i seen em on star trek
[img] [/img]

They have one and-a-half legs and yellow humps.....

[img] [/img]

I can't see how it could be possible that we are the only life in the entire universe.

There are more stars out there than all the grains of sand on all the beaches in the world.

That's a lot of potential "suns"!

we will even be able to prove it is another question

I think it's pretty certain that we wont...But it think it's more than likely there is life out there. You really just have to look at the variety on earth, and it really could look like anything based on that evidence..

Nor will we ever communicate with them, well it's extremely doubtful, our own radio waves are only about 100 light years away from earth right now, which isn't very big in universe terms.

The size of the universe pretty much dictates that communicating with and never mind meeting alien civilisations is fairly remote. Well unless some new form of technology is invented/discovered.

tbh the first intellegent life we will meet is when some other form of life on earth develops as far as we have.

Ahh my one legged days, I'm much betterer with my prosthetic limb nowadays.

Happy mtb days, I seem to be mainly commuting only at present. That and building homes for chickens, country life is soo hectic!

There is already tool using non-human life on this on this planet with acknowledged intelligence, so given that, it's almost certain that tool using life with the intelligence to work out how to do so must exist elsewhere.

would invading aliens start by taking over gingerbread establishments then?

i think it would be both naive and arrogant to think in the near infinite expanse of space there wouldn't be another planet, perhaps thousands of planets, with intelligent life on them

Why does it have to be "naive and arrogant"?

I was just talking to someone yesterday about the fact that normal discussion is almost impossible these days without people taking up an almost instant entrenched and combative position on whichever side of the issue they decide (sometimes randomly it seems) to favour.

Given that we have absolutely no evidence of life elsewhere, it seems "naive and arrogant" to start dissing other people for holding a view either way.

OTOH, I think not.

Given that we have absolutely no evidence of life elsewhere, it seems "naive and arrogant" to start dissing other people for holding a view either way.

Well that's not quite true.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/15/mars-life-methane-nasa

Have you not been to Penge?

Drac,

I think that is a bit short of "evidence".

The scientist who released the info said "We do not claim to have identified life, [b]nor do we think it is possible to draw that conclusion solely on the basis of methane detection[/b]"

In the past 30 years, our knowledge of life in extreme environments has exploded. Scientists found microbes in nuclear reactors, microbes that love acid, and microbes that swim in boiling-hot water. Whole ecosystems have been discovered around deep sea vents where sunlight never reaches and the emerging vent-water is hot enough to melt lead.

The Goldilocks Zone is bigger than we thought.

-- http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/livingthings/microbes_goldilocks.html

A team of planet hunters led by astronomers at the University of California (UC), Santa Cruz and the Carnegie Institution of Washington has announced the discovery of a planet orbiting a nearby star, Gliese 581, at a distance that places it squarely in the middle of the star's "habitable zone." This would be the most Earth-like exoplanet and the first truly habitable one yet discovered.

-- http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/audiofile/First_Goldilocks_Exoplanet_Discovered.html

So, evidence that even the limited carbon-based life we know about on this planet can live in extreme conditions AND evidence that other planets like Earth exist even within the limited distance we can look for them.

As I said, more stars than sand, so at best it seems "statistically unlikely" that Earth has the only life. Why would it?

My 2p is that as per GrahamS' links we are continuing to find life in places where it was thought to be impossible. That must then result in an increase in our theoretical probability of life existing elsewhere.

Of course there's a huge gulf between life in its basic forms and any form of rudimentary intelligent life, then another step to use of tools, language and civilisation. Then there's a couple of minor issues to overcome before we meet - one being the vast scale of interstellar distance and the other being the chance of two intelligent life forms that are relatively close to each other in space actually evolving and existing in the same window of time.

So while the chances of there being other life 'out there' are relatively high, the chances of being able to sit down for tea and biccies with them is pretty darn slim.

All in my naive and arrogant opinion of course.

My 2p is that as per GrahamS' links we are continuing to find life in places where it was thought to be impossible.

On earth!

That must then result in an increase in our theoretical probability of life existing elsewhere.

Why?

the chances of there being other life 'out there' are relatively high

They [b]are[/b] relatively high ?!?!?

Because you feel it in your water?

Your overconfidence makes it impossible to take you seriously.

They are relatively high ?!?!?

Because you feel it in your water?

Your overconfidence makes it impossible to take you seriously.

Woah there. That's the trouble, "normal discussion is almost impossible these days without people taking up an almost instant entrenched and combative position" 😉

I'm trying to have a [i]normal[/i] discussion with you. You asked for evidence. The evidence says that life exists in all kinds of extreme environments on our own planet AND that there are Earth like planets out there AND that there are more stars out there than anyone can fully comprehend.

Statistically speaking it seems "very likely" that we are not alone in the universe.

Can you offer any evidence (or even theory/philosophy) the other way?
Why would Earth be so uniquely special that we are the only planet capable of supporting life out of the uncountable billions upon billions in the universe?

The difference between us is that when I've given my opinion, I've flagged it as my opinion.

You've started bandying stuff around about statistics as if that actually means anything, but it's pseudo science.

Until the day that we actually do discover life, or something a bit more concrete than "some methane" then saying that it is "very likely" is just going way too far.

Can you offer any evidence (or even theory/philosophy) the other way?

Duh!

Why would Earth be so uniquely special that we are the only planet capable of supporting life out of the uncountable billions upon billions in the universe?

Because that's what we know. I seem to keep trotting this out, but I'll do it again - see Occam's Razor

[img] [/img]Some look a bit like us

You've started bandying stuff around about statistics as if that actually means anything, but it's pseudo science.

Erm.. no statistics is pretty fundamental to most science. See practically any scientific paper for a raft of statistics.

Duh!

I'll take that as a no.

I seem to keep trotting this out, but I'll do it again - see Occam's Razor

Funny I was going to use that argument on you!

You see a herd of cows in a field. You've never seen a cow before, but you do know that there are billions of other fields just like this one.

Why would Occam's Razor suggest that cows only exist in that field?
And why would it suggest that all the other fields are devoid of any life?

rightplacerighttime - Member
The difference between us is that when I've given my opinion, I've flagged it as my opinion.

You've started bandying stuff around about statistics as if that actually means anything, but it's pseudo science.

Until the day that we actually do discover life, or something a bit more concrete than "some methane" then saying that it is "very likely" is just going way too far.

Blimey - get out of the bed on the wrong side?? Or were you abducted by aliens and holding some kind of pent-up anger towards your captors??

I'd say through probability and other blah blah stuff, there will undoubtedly be other life forms out there. Chances are they won't be green versions of ourselves (like Star Trek), but there will be other life out there.....

Another straw man argument (quell surprise) - I'm not saying that statistics can't be used in science, just that you are misusing statistical terms.

re' Occam's Razor, the (wrong) assumption that you are making is that there are billions of planets "just like earth"

Your field of cows analogy is wrong because we already know that there [b]are[/b] lots of cows.

If I took you to the Louvre and showed you the Mona Lisa, would it be right to assume that there were loads of other Mona Lisas in art galleries around the world?

stumpy01

there will [b]undoubtedly[/b] be other life forms out there

Sounds like blind faith to me.

GrahamS

I'll take that as a no.

Why don't you take it as scorn for your asking me to prove a -ve.

Or do we need to debate whether that is possible?

rightplacerighttime - OK, so the fact that we have found life where it wasn't believed to be possible doesn't actually increase the probability of life existing elsewhere (it will or it won't exist regardless of what we've found), but it must increase our theoretical probability of that life existing. Eg. [url= http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life ]this[/url] discovery means that a previous constraint on the theoretical pre-conditions for life has been proved wrong, thereby expanding the range of planets that could possible be suitable for developing life and ipso facto expanding our theoretical possibility of such life existing.

There are (fact) billions of galaxies containing billions of stars existing over billions of years. What are the chances of at least one other planet orbiting one of those stars having suitable conditions for life to develop? Someone's already posted Drake's equation which is the current best guess of the existence of civilised life in one galaxy. Take the last couple of terms out of that and you have an equation that expresses the bare existence of life in our galaxy. Multiply that by the number of galaxies and there's a pretty big number for you to consider.

Apologies if this reference to the scientific community's current best practice is too overconfident and can't be taken seriously.

Why don't you take it as scorn for your asking me to prove a -ve.

That's why I allowed you the leeway of theory or philosphy, but you seemed unable to take either without getting all frothy and angry.

If I took you to the Louvre and showed you the Mona Lisa, would it be right to assume that there were loads of other Mona Lisas in art galleries around the world?

No, but I wouldn't reach that conclusion by applying Occam's Razor.

re' Occam's Razor, the (wrong) assumption that you are making is that there are billions of planets "just like earth"

Because that is what the best scientific evidence we have says.
[url= http://www.webcitation.org/5wg3VVKg4 ]There are 50 billion planets in our galaxy alone, 50 million of which are in the habitable "goldilocks" zone.[/url]

And NASA bods reckon there are 100 billion galaxies!

re' Occam's Razor, the (wrong) assumption that you are making is that there are billions of planets "just like earth"

and the wrong assumption you are making is that life requires a planet 'just like Earth' to flourish........

you have to ask the question, "If there are aliens, why dont we see them?"

In the large universe that we live in it is statistically impossible that "X" number of civilisations have not evolved and developed. The electromagnetic noise of these should be visible. The universe is however quiet.

I do not believe there are aliens, in fact i believe we are in a simulation

you have to ask the question, "If there are aliens, why dont we see them?"

In the large universe that we live in it is statistically impossible that "X" number of civilisations have not evolved and developed. The electromagnetic noise of these should be visible. The universe is however quiet.

"Space... is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is..."

As someone said earlier our own electromagnetic noise has barely made it out of our own solar system.
And we've only been listening for other civilisations for a few decades.

As we established yesterday...

[img] [/img]

They look like Elfin 😀

Are you talking about now?

Whats the odds there are other lifeforms - personally I think there must be somewhere, however if your question is have there ever been or will there ever be other lifeforms then that increases the odds massively in an infinity x infinity kind of a way

Or maybe it depends if God made them, or do other universes have their own imaginary friends?

Anyway I'm not the Alien (which is an in joke so not funny but I have a mate who is)

Have you ever seen those videos of newly discovered Amazon tribes throwing spears at passing helicopters? That's us that is.

Apologies if this reference to the scientific community's current best practice is too overconfident and can't be taken seriously.

Ah, sorry, I didn't realise there was unanimity in the scientific community. Well, if that's what they all think....

But NB, I'm not saying that we shouldn't entertain the idea of life elsewhere. What got my goat was the ridiculous level of certainty expressed that there [b]must[/b] be alien life expressed by a few here.

What got my goat was the ridiculous level of certainty expressed that there must be alien life expressed by a few here.

Nothing is certain. But it is statistically "very very likely".

Winning the lottery is quite unlikely, but somewhat less so if you buy 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tickets (estimated number of stars in the universe).

The odds of arriving at the chemical conditions that created life here are either so infinitesimally small that this is the only planet in the entire universe where it has ever happened. Or they are not as small in which case the huge numbers of stars and planets dictate that life is everywhere.

I go for option 2. I reckon it’s all over the place however intelligent communicating life or life with interstellar travel options probably not.

The odds of arriving at the chemical conditions that created life here are either so infinitesimally small that this is the only planet in the entire universe where it has ever happened. Or they are not as small in which case the huge numbers of stars and planets dictate that life is everywhere.

Orrrrrr.. God did it and ran away.

(Though I suspect Occam says this is unlikely).

Winning the lottery is quite unlikely, but somewhat less so if you buy 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tickets (estimated number of stars in the universe).

Another terrible analogy.

The difference is that someone always will win the lottery.

The difference is that someone always will win the lottery

They're wasting their time with this "rollover" caper, then.

rightplacerighttime don't forget to mention evolution is made up rubbish, you'll get a few more pages that way 😉

The difference is that someone always will win the lottery.

Yes. Sometimes even multiple [s]planets[/s] people win it - despite the very long odds. See what I'm getting at?

Undoubtedly life exists elsewhere in the universe. The point we've missed is that it has taken three billion years of evolution on Earth for a lifeform able to send radio waves to other worlds which has been achieved within the last fifty.

The chances of us communicating with a lifeform at a similar technological level to us is frighteningly small. Then there's the oft quoted maxim from Clarke - "Technology from a very advanced civilization will be indistinguishable from magic". It's entirely feasible that any civilization advanced enough to observe us would have an ethical issue with making contact.

Anyway, the biggest question here is that assuming we encounter an advanced civilization within our lifetimes there are important questions we'd need to ask them. Firstly, do they ride bicycles off road for pleasure. Secondly, what tyres do they recommend and thirdly, would they opt for a single pivot or a Horst link bike?

rightplacerighttime don't forget to mention evolution is made up rubbish

I'm assuming rightplacerighttime is not a religious type - as he doesn't believe in aliens and God is the ultimate ET.

Yes. Sometimes even multiple planets people win it - despite the very long odds. See what I'm getting at?

I see that you don't understand probability.

We do know that someone will win the lottery - the probability of it happening is 1.

We do not know that there is alien life - the probability of us finding life is unknown - no matter how many potentially habitable planets there are, the probability will remain unknown unless we find it.

I'm assuming rightplacerighttime is not a religious type - as he doesn't believe in aliens and God is the ultimate ET.

What a pathetic response.

I see that you don't understand probability.

We do know that someone will win the lottery - the probability of it happening is 1.

ROFL. Yeah, I'm clearly struggling with probability. 😀

What a pathetic response.

? Why?

If you believe in (Christian) God then you believe in at least one alien, surely?

It is extremely unlikely that earth is the only plant with life on it.

And 'life' could mean many things, even things we don't as yet understand fully.

Could that life be more intelligent than use? Of course, only the mistaken belief that man is the ultimate being would prevent anyone from thinking otherwise.

They look like Elfin

Why did I know that would pop up? 😐

It's true, actually. I am here amongst you, to infect your minds and bring about your surrender through constant mental torture. You will eventually succumb. Resistance is useless. You will be assimilated.

Here's a picture of me missus. She's an annoying cah, I tell you. Nag nag nag always going on 'Have you fixed the boiler? Have you taken the kids to the vet? Have you cleaned the Cube? Have you done this? Have you done that?' Nag nag bloody nag all the bloody time does me 'ead in... 🙄

[img] [/img]

Elfinsafety - Member

Have you cleaned the Cube?

She's not Philip Schofield, is she??

[img] http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQxh4e_MPhYc7YpHcTxadDLhfWM340y5TWSNZHNB2DjkN4fD9g4sDBWWqKbg [/img]

If you believe in (Christian) God then you believe in at least one alien, surely?

I don't believe in God.

You really are desperate.

I don't believe in God.

Okay good. I did say that I assumed you didn't but your arguments did have the slightly needy [i]"We are special snowflakes"[/i] tone of a deity-botherer.

You really are desperate.

Only for your love.

I did say that I assumed you didn't

But you thought the opposite though didn't you? Otherwise you'd not have bothered with the nasty little dig?

It's interesting that you seem to have complete faith in alien life but mock those who have faith in a creator. You see any paradox there?

I am convinced there are aliens - the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation ]drake equation[/url] proves it - the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox ]fermi paradox[/url] is interesting tho.

To me - with the (almost ??) infinite number of stars over an almost infinite time surely the conditions for life will be replicated many times over. Its very arrogant to assume something unique about or little dull planet.

I believe in the "zoo hypothesis" to the fermi paradox - that is that the aliens know we are here but are not revealing themselves to us yet while they watch us as in a zoo.

I read this a while back. Basically says same as above, simple life almost certainly exists elsewhere, but it needs very specific conditions to evolve into complex animal life.

[img] [/img]

Plenty of counter arguments though, mainly that this focuses solely on *our* view on life, and there could be loads of strange stuff we've never thought of.

this:
[img] [/img]

is the hubble deep field image - a photo, of a tiny patch of space.

every smudge of light is a galaxy, each galaxy has billions of stars. It's a terrible waste of space if there's nothing else out there to enjoy it.

Theres a synopsis on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

It's interesting that you seem to have complete faith in alien life but mock those who have faith in a creator. You see any paradox there?

I know you're not addressing me, but I don'tn see a paradox. I can see how someone could, but there seems to me to be a substantial gulf between "I think there's probably other life in the universe because it's a very very big place containing many planets similar to our own" and "the whole lot was made by a man with a beard".

But you thought the opposite though didn't you? Otherwise you'd not have bothered with the nasty little dig?

What [i]"nasty little dig"[/i]? I've invoked God twice. Once to admit Him as a possibility and once to make a philosophical observation about his existence.

No nastiness intended.

For someone who complains about "combative positions" on forums you seem very keen to take one rather than have a reasoned debate.

It's interesting that you seem to have complete faith in alien life but mock those who have faith in a creator. You see any paradox there?

I don't think I've mocked anyone, but nope I see no paradox.

I don't have [i]"complete faith in alien life"[/i], I just think that it seems extremely likely based on the balance of facts, research, extrapolations and theories that we currently have.

ahwiles: I like [url= http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/star/pr2008014a/large_web/ ]this one[/url] from Hubble:
[img] [/img]
The centre of Omega Centauri.

"My God, it's full of stars" 😀

I don't get rightplace's argument

Are you saying that because we've not met them they don't exist?

emsz - Member
I don't get rightplace's argument

Are you saying that because we've not met them they don't exist?

Who said that?? 😀

Are you saying that because we've not met them they don't exist?

No.

I'm saying that the degree of certainty that others are putting forward that there IS alien life is totally unwarranted.

It's just not possible to say that it is "very very likely" or that "Undoubtedly life exists elsewhere in the universe" or "the drake equation proves it"

The problem is a bit like Schroedingers Cat, where alien life is the cat and the box is the universe - unless and until we actually see some real evidence we simply have no way of knowing. The number of stars and galaxies is totally irrelevant.

i dont get why rprt is being so argumentative and it is a very brave man who decides to take on grahams on probabilities or maths - he should see the threads you start to give an insight

I don’t know why you are getting so offended RPRT that he correctly pointed out you don’t believe in god [ he was adding weight to your view by saying you were not a nutty god bothering creationist [ he was of course being more polite than I am]. I cannot see why this upset you or you were offended tbh.

As for your lottery attempts /comprehension …see my first point on taking him on on maths /probabilities. Evn i know tha the probability being one means I buy one ticket I win the lottery - so every week everyone who enters wins the lottery then - It is not even won every week so the probability is not even 1 for the lottery being won that draw.

Like graham there are billion of starts and we are starting ot find planets in the correct zone. You need water for life and the rest of the chemicals exist anyway. It seems likely. Am I certain no. However I would be as surprised to find no life anywhere else in the universe as I would be to find god laughing and playing dice. It could happen but it seems unlikely

EDIT:

until we actually see some real evidence we simply have no way of knowing. The number of stars and galaxies is totally irrelevant.

the hubble deep field image - a photo, of a tiny patch of space.

... a [i]really[/i] tiny patch... equivalent to 1mm square at arms length. Put me in with the "yes, obviously" side of the debate 🙂

The number of stars and galaxies is totally irrelevant.

...just like the number of tickets sold in the lottery is totally irrelevant to how many people win prizes.

Errr no, hang on... it isn't

So Graham,

you've moved from:

I can't see how it could be possible that we are the only life in the entire universe.

to

I just think that it seems extremely likely based on the balance of facts, research, extrapolations and theories that we currently have.

I see I'm winning you round.

elliptic,

Do you really not understand the problem with the lottery analogy?

Are we back in the land of aeroplanes on conveyors?

[i]I see I'm winning you round. [/i]

don't get your hopes up.

No one, in the history of the internet, has ever changed their mind due to a well reasoned argument being put forward on a forum.

and not from a abad one from someone who argues about probablilities whilst getting each point wrong

understand the problem with the lottery analogy

yes the more people who buy different tickets the more chance there is that someone wins..it like the number of tickets/stars/planets/ changes the odds of a win/life or something 😯

I don't think anyone is saying there's *certainly* life. I read G's position as "it seems that it's probable"

have I got that right?

Evn i know tha the probability being one means I buy one ticket I win the lottery - so every week everyone who enters wins the lottery then - It is not even won every week so the probability is not even 1 for the lottery being won that draw.

Oh dear.

With the lottery, money goes into a pot.

Numbers are drawn.

Eventually someone wins.

The probability of someone winning at some point is 1, because people will keep playing until it is won.

Even in the worst circumstances, eventually all of the combinations of numbers will be covered and the lottery will be won.

We have looked at some of the universe and found no evidence of alien life so far.

Just because we keep searching does not mean we will find it, because it might not be there.

No matter how big it is, or how long we search, if it is not there, we won't find it.

Do you see why the situations are not analogous now?

yes you have emsz

We do know that someone will win the lottery - the probability of it happening is 1.

The probability of someone winning at some point is 1

you have moved the goal posts now - given an infintie lotteries of course even if only one ticket is sold it is cetain it will be won - interesting given an infintie number of stars and planets the odds of life are not 1 though. WHY?
I would much rather get back OT so
Could you explain why the number of stars and galaxies dont alter the odds?
TA