I've enjoyed reading through this topic =) I think it's a little silly to think there are no other forms of life out there, especially with everything we have learned about our universe. I recently watched an 8 ep series on Netflix (How the Universe Works; instant stream it!) that is very cool and explains the mechanics of our universe, galaxy, and solar system. It seems unlikely that there are other planets out there with little people just like us talking about the possibilities, but the universe is vast! I wonder though, if there is an abundance of life that we simply cannot perceive all around us. The visible spectrum of light is so small compared to all the...frequencies out there!! Anyway, the conditions that need to happen to support the type of life on Earth are very specific and rare. I expect that in the universe there are other "sentient" beings, self-aware beings, and life, but they must be vastly different. As for the multi-verse theory...YES! Our universe could exist a million times again and again exactly the same. Then the question is do we have influence over our actions? Do things happen differently? Kind of gives logic to the paradox of free will and fate if you think about it. There is destiny because things have been and will be again, but at the same time each is unique... Also it seems logical because the trigger of the big bang could have been our own universe collapsing in on itself. I am ecstatic to be alive in a time of such discovery, and I feel that there is much known to few that has not been revealed to the masses. I will do more research and come back later =DDD
Just disputing this one fact. It's actually quite highly probable that MOST solar systems have gas giants further then rocky planets like Earth. The reason for this is because in the early buildup of the solar system, the suns solar wind makes it difficult for gas giants to develop in close proximity (relatively speaking of course) to a star. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090422-planet-stripped-naked.html And to add, any small rock likes planets will be more common in close proximity to a star because they will be swamped or bombarded by larger planets further from the star. Planets like Pluto are probably the except, but it's so far away the larger planets can't affect it as much. This goes to show that most multi planatary solar systems will probably follow this model. Small rocky planets closest to the sun, as you go further larger gas planets, then go further and you get various sizes but mostly small rocky like planets and asteroids. Which increases the chances of habitable planets in the universe then what we commonly like to think.
Hahaha, kind of like how they use to believe the earth was flat because no one had ventured far enough to discover that it is not. Our tiny immediate planetary system is like a grain of sand in the desert compared to the entire universe. We still have not visited many places on our own planet yet and are finding new species every day. Kind of a leap to conclude we have turned over every rock in the universe and found nothing yet.
My understanding is central to my viewpoint that in the entire universe the origin of the source of life has a beginning, if this is the case then I can conclude therefore that wherever that beginning is, then that is now the centre of everything/The Universe. That beginning is travelling/expanding in a one form direction.There can never be 2 or more things that are travelling at the same universal speed and has been heading in one the same direction. So if we are the first product of this beginning, then we are evolving alone. So we are the only species of our kind. Still, my belief is that, we are alone. polscie
But our sun wasn't the first, or the oldest, so doesn't that alone blow your theory out of the water??
Long ago I remember hearing that someday when Earth becomes uninhabitable that we will need to be prepared to move mankind to another planet. At the time, with Buck Rogers fiction, it made some sense. But today I believe this idea has little merit. Seems to me for the reasons you mention, and others, that solar systems will be similar to ours. If so, we can only inhabit one planet...Earth. The others will not support our type of life forms. Sure we can place a few people in a biosphere but how long will that actually last? The evolution of the solar system requires more time than we can imagine and there's no guarantee that evolution will benefit mankind. So...I'm thinking our type of life can exist on one planet per solar system. There are no Martians, or Neptunians, or Plutonians, or Venusians, etc....only Earthlings. If this can be true, then we should find lifeforms potentially similar to us on those Goldilocks planets...millions or billions of them...
Don't know for sure but I believe at sea level the horizon of an ocean is only about 4-5 miles out. It is hard for me to imagine that a boat never sailed out this distance to realize the ocean was not flat? Or in looking down a long coast line in which the beach eventually disappears? Long ago on Cosmos by Carl Sagan didn't he indicate that there were more planets or solar systems in the Universe than there were grains of sand in all the beaches of the world?
I'm agreeing with your opinion as well. I think solar systems with multiple habitable planets is probably extremely rare. Though I do think rocky planets are more common than most people think. And the ingredients for life are abundant in the universe. What is the most common compound in the universe? Surprise surprise.... water. Nearly every planet on our solar system has or had a large supply of water. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, oxygen the third. So the ingredients for life exist in large quantities in the universe. Want to know what else is amazing, when our solar system was developing, all the water that existed at the time, or most of it, was evaporated do do the incredibly volatile and hot environment as the planets and sun were forming. Most of the water we have now was after the fact, so was the water on Mars, and the same for many of the other planets. Water is clearly incredibly common in the universe. I do think the conditions for solar systems with multiple stars or nearer to the galaxy is a different matter just because the environment is probably far less stable as compared to a 1 star solar system. But I am pretty confident that most 1 star solar systems looks like ours. I think the question as far as life is concerned, isn't whether life exists elsewhere, but what "goldilock" planets were stable enough to allow the evolution of large body life or intelligent life.
Thank Polscie .I wish you a merry christmas But do you agree with simple logic ? The number of star systems we know ( which is only a part of the whole ) , the average number of planets that each one has .(check it on the web) That makes a huge number . Then take the age of univers ( # 13.5 x (10^9) yrs): it makes a two dimention surface . (time Vs number of planets ) On this surface , you pinpoint "one" for earth which is a single planet ; And 1 billion for the time it took for life appears . Earth is 4.5 x( 10^9) yrs old . First living cells appeared 1x(10^9)years ago. Then compare the whole surface with the tiny " sole one segment " which is the case for Earth ,( one single planet = one point ) and 01 billion years for life time ....that gives one segment . Compare these two surfaces ! The rate between the two is one kind of infinity . If you accept the concept of logic (on which our world exists) - you realize that the fact that humanity could be alone is totally implausible ! It's impossible that life ( under any form ) exists only on one planet . Laws of big numbers is an exact science. After , if the night is clear , watch the sky , and where no star are shining , take your binoculars , the number of tiny lights you see shows you that Earth can't be alone with living things aboard. So the problem is to find the way to get in contact . We have the software to find it . It only needs time and work .... and will
I am not sure wether you and I agree on the same definition of this "we" in the claim of "We are alone". To me, "we" stands for as our species. My claim is that this species is alone in the entire universe. But I believe that there are countless form of life in the entire universe. I do believe that the earth itself is a form of life. In the application of "No two things are alike", then we, as a species is one of a kind and so we are alone under this category of form of life. polscie
The other aspect I think about when discussing SETI is how long intelligent life has existed? On Earth most everything we know and the technology we have created has been accomplished in less than 200 years. The next question is how long might we survive? So, when we're searching in light-years, and billions of years of time, in order to detect signs of 'intelligent' life, not only must we find the 'place' but we must also be lucky to hit the 'time' when signs of intelligent life might exist. It will help if we find intelligent civilizations can survive thousands or millions of years...
I chuckle at those self-professed secularists/atheists/whatever who - in one breath - are quick to say that there is no God (because there is no evidence). Then they go ahead and say that there is other intelligent life in the Universe. Because....just because.
But, there kind of is evidence that life forms in this Universe, we are an example of this. Also, the fact that there are trillions upon trillions of stars with habitable planets on many of them gives credence that life is probably likely, as well as the fact that the elements for life are abundant throughout the Universe.
A fallacy of large numbers is wrongly used by you. How would more chances for life, meaning more opportunities for habitable planets to exist, not mean anything? We know that life is possible, we know that the Universe is abundant with planets, we know that the Universe is full of the building blocks of life. That, I would consider evidence.
