New estimate for the potential number of technologically advanced civilizations in our Galaxy

Discussion in 'Science' started by Monash, Jun 20, 2020.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,478
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's the process that is the problem.

    The notions of "esp" are not made more likely by the very real difficulties of large distances and the speed of light. It's still a total fabrication without evidence.

    The finding of a large squid does not make the claims of big foot, aliens, etc. any more rational.

    The commonality in the themes of human dreams, halucinations, etc. have to be expected, as they come from human brains steeped in the social environment of living human beings, their experiences in this world, their religions, etc. and implemented by not totally identical physical brain construction.

    The imperfections we face CAN cause us to make huge mistakes about what's really happening. That's a reason wise people began developing science.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  2. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It isn't accurate. It is pure guesswork and mathematical games. Is it possible that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? Of course. How possible, nobody knows. If Einstein is right we will never know.

    So obviously you think Einstein is wrong.
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,478
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I agree that predictions such as those in that post you responded to are not founded on anything that could be considered evidence.

    However, there is also no evidence of any kind that would suggest that faster than light travel, useful wormholes, use of other dimensions for travel, etc. are possible.

    So, you can guess what I think of this idea that totally undetected life forms did that which we see as absolutely impossible. So far, we haven't found more than traces of chemicals which seem to coincide with our own perceptions of what a microorganism might need.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  4. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,245
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You do know that it's courtesy to provide the quote on which your premise is based, right?
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2020
    WillReadmore likes this.
  5. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK then I recommend you read Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
     
  6. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe a good exercise is to use Frank Drake's equation, or modified versions of his equation, and argue what inputs to use, and ponder the myriad results. All of us have ideas and/or opinions but none of us have empirical data to support them. The only empirical data we have is that Earthlings are alone. We must continue various forms of SETI as funding permits and technology allows...it's baby-steps with the potential to discover the 'big one' in a moment's notice...this is why we keep going...
     
  7. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,245
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Try being more specific, not everyone is a frickin' mind reader.
     
  8. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,245
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not particularly...
    Okay, I'm going to take a guess at what you are getting at, which, if you were courteous, you would have mentioned it, and I'm guessing you are referring to the idea that the limitation of the universal speed limit, where Einstein said nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, therefore, means it's impossible for Aliens to reach us given the vast distances involved.

    Now, given I said we are being visited by Aliens, you have thus assumed I believe Einstein is wrong.

    Is this an correct assessment of this conversation, thus far?

    Assuming it is . .. I will continue with that in mind, as follows.

    Given the notion that an alien civilization could be advanced, say, a million years perhaps, that they have no doubt discovered a deeper knowledge of physics, beyond the sphere and scope of Einstein's Theory, it doesn't mean Einstein was wrong, it's just that it is right in it's own scope and sphere, that there may be something beyond it, where it doesn't apply.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2020
  9. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,245
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Try being a little more specific

    Explain yourself. Unless, of course, you are lazy and your only purpose is to annoy people with smug one liners.

    To say what I wrote, which is a narrow proposition, requires rejecting Einstein's theory of relativity in it's entirety is not something someone who is polite, well meaning, and well versed in physics would say --- because, it's absurd, it's not focused, it smacks of laziness.

    A physicist would be polite, and be specific, and they wouldn't be lazy, they would explain what I wrote, and quote the exact part I wrote, and explain how it conflicts with something Einstein wrote, and quote the line in Einstein's work that what I wrote conflicts with. .

    But, someone who is disingenuous would write 'then you reject Einstein", which is a statement which is meaningless, lazy, smug, a statement by someone who doesn't deserve being taken seriously..

    If that is who you are, let me know, and I'll place you on my ignore list. Let's not waste each others time.
    The reason I believe it, is that, given I'm not a scientist, I can afford to, whereas a scientist, having a reputation to maintain, cannot.

    But, I don't believe it in a total vacuum. The only way I could convey to you why I believe it, would require your traveling the journey I've traveled, which involves reading the works of Dr. David Jacobs, Dr. John Mack, and that of Budd Hopkins, (and that of Stanton Friedman) and to do so with an open mind and without a preconceived notion of what they are writing about, letting the chips of believability fall where they may.

    I understand that those works are still insufficient for scientific validation, (though Mack and Friedman did try ) but for conversation, and serious belief, it does rise to that level, a level where layman can afford to live, without fear of losing one's livelihood or being ostracized by peers.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2020
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,478
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The catch is that we have almost no understanding of what the parameters are. We're not even aware of that for our own planet.

    For example, right now there is a significant community that believes that tectonic plate movement was critical to abiogenesis on Earth. We know that a lot of planets have no tectonic plate movement. So, what should THAT parameter be? I think we don't even know if it a general requirement or how much more likely tectonic plates make life.

    One of the cool things about searching for life is that it isn't limited to SETI. Everything we learn about our universe contributes - even stuff we learn about Earth.

    So, our search for life is not limited to SETI. I'm in favor of public funds for SETI. But, I'd also notice that it wasn't SETI that found phosphine on Venus - a notable sign of the possibility of life.
     
  11. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually I would like to be on your ignore list. It would save me having to read your rude comments. I have said before that the problem with visitors from the universe is the distances involved. According to Einstein's theory,. nothing can travel faster than light. It is a universal speed limit. Something as massive as a vehicle couldn't get very close to the speed of light. Einstein's theory of relativity has been tested and approved by the physical community. Therefore if you think vehicles can arrive after traveling hundreds of thousands of years or millions or billions, then you are in a small minority that rejects physical theories that are accepted as valid in the scientific community.

    I'm familiar with some of the propositions people have offered that don't involve traveling any distance but they aren't even theories. They are untested and untestable schemes that fly in the face of the physics of the universe as we know them. Do we know everything? Of course not. We know less than what we don't know. But what we know currently is at least explaining things reasonably well (quantum mechanics aside). My terse comments were not disingenuous, meaningless or smug. I will accept lazy. I come here for entertainment and I don't find lengthy posts very entertaining.

    You can believe what you like but given a complete lack of evidence and good reasons not to believe what you believe, I will leave you to those beliefs.
     
  12. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Possible, sure. How possible?, not very. We would have to follow that line of investigation if there were some tangible credible evidence of extraterrestial intelligent life having visited us. But there is no such evidence. So there are better things to investigate that can be observed and tested.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2020
  13. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,245
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Scientists will be the last person on earth to acknowledge the existence of aliens. Aliens are very clever, they know how to move about clandestinely. Their entire agenda is clandestine in nature. Many who have encountered them, have been abducted by them, all tell a similar tale, people from all walks of life, the same story, more or less, excluding the nut jobs that are out there, and many of them are not nut jobs, they are doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists, businessmen, etc. There are tons, literally tons of circumstantial evidence, like this. I'm not talking about lights in the sky, I'm talking about abductions.

    I know you like to brush them off with a cavalier swipe, but you haven't really investigated the subject, and you haven't because you have assumed there isn't compelling evidence. That's an assumption, by the way.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,478
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I totally reject such stories, too. The fact that they are similar stories is definitely not evidence.

    Your swipe at science is not appreciated. Scienists everywhere would dearly love to see evidence of life. Scientists are wildly excited about the discovery of phosphine on Venus - a sign that there could possibly be life their. And there are space and Earth based telescopes of various kinds that are producing data that is scoured for signs of life of any kind by scientists the world over.

    Suggesting that scientists are uninterested in extraterrestrial life is just flat out preposterous.

    If someone finds evidence, scientists will be super excited and all over it.
     
  15. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I said, you can believe what you like.
     
  16. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I misused the acronym SETI using it as a shortcut to mean 'searching for extraterrestrial intelligence' and was not referring to the actual SETI program...sorry.

    Regarding tectonic plates, if this was to become one of the variables, then it means 'we' have come to some scientific consensus that tectonic plates are critical in the development of life. Drake's entire equation is a guessing game but the variables must be rooted in some fundamental belief that they are necessary for the development of life...so instead of pie-in-the-sky guessing it's more of educated guesses to arrive at a conclusion based on what we know and believe in this moment. Does advanced life require a magnetic field? Does advanced life require an oxygen atmosphere?
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,478
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd say SETI was most of the search effort at the beginning, and I think SETI got pretty well labeled as that. So, for a long time your usage was pretty much right on target, I think!

    I think the problem is that we don't know the factors and for any factor we know we don't have any idea of how important it is.

    Beyond that, for many of the possible factors (tectonic plates, magnetosphere, etc., etc.) we don't have any significant amount of evidence concerning how frequently those features exist in the universe.

    With the finding of phosphine on Venus there appears to be an outside chance of life there - which would violate pretty much ever notion of what is required for life to spring up.

    I just think the Drake approach is monumentally misleading - regardless of how carefully it is constructed and what answer it might give.
     
  18. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The results of the equation should not be anymore misleading than what we input for the variables. If the variables are incorrect then modify the variables. The answers will never be conclusive. The equation was designed, I believe, for lay-people to use a process which lies somewhere between science and auto-mechanics, to theorize the 'probabilities' of other intelligent beings within the Universe...and to help people understand the vastness of space/time. Each person performing the exercise will have their unique inputs and will arrive at vastly different answers. I suspect even the top 10 planetary scientists will arrive at vastly different answers.

    Another thing about the variables is some should be measurable while others are 100% guesses. One variable 'might' be how many planets within the so-called Goldilock's zone...this is something we can measure then extrapolate. Another might be how long can an advanced civilization exist...this will be a total guess.

    I would prefer discussing a Drake-type equation over two or more people arguing about what 'they think'...especially in an educational setting...
     
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,478
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I certainly agree with your process idea - that of correcting variables in a predictive model as we learn. We do that in climatology, medicine, etc.

    But, I don't believe we know nearly enough to use the Drake approach to life in the universe. We don't know what the variables actually are and we don't have any idea what the value of those variable should be - outside of guessing at numbers of planets, or whatever. We have a general idea of how many planets there are.

    My impression is that scientists in this area would tend not to be interested in contributing anything to a Drake style approach. The guy who leads SETI doesn't look at it that way. I don't believe others do, either.

    That does feel disappointing, but I think that is the fact of the matter.

    I agree that arguing about whether there is life of any kind anywhere else in our universe is really a waste of time. I just do not believe the Drake approach improves that.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  20. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We only know what we know at this moment. Contemplations about the future can range from wild-ass guesses to educated guesses. I like the Drake equation, or something similar, because it keeps the guesses centered on things that are more than 'what each of us thinks'.
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,478
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK. This is no big deal to me, as I don't see it affecting any decision we might possibly make.

    For example, the result of any Drake type equation hits me as highly unlikely to change our investment in exploring our universe. In fact, it might do more to inform us of how little we know.

    My own view is that we have pretty much no clue about what the parameters might be, let alone their values. So, every possible Drake equation is an argument from ignrance fallacy.

    Interesting side light: Recent data indicates that there are probably at least 50 billion rogue planets in our galaxy - planets that don't revolve around stars, but were probably kicked out during the chaos of solar system creation. Some percent of these planets could have residual heat from formation and/or tectonic plate movement as well as having somewhat insolating atmospheres (since there is no star blowing away these atmospheres) and protective magnetic fields. Maybe that's a new type of location where life could form.
     
  22. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    10,400,000 have Googled The Drake Equation and countless more continue to discuss it. No matter it's flaws, it has certainly encouraged more objective dialogue around SETI. I don't know how it affects investment in space exploration but it's a good starting point for lay people.

    I doubt Drake considered his equation to be an ignorance fallacy? The equation was not designed to ascertain objective answers rooted in empirical data. I suspect it was a counter to those who discuss creationism, those who 'think' we are alone, and those who 'think' intelligent life exists everywhere.

    If Earth and all that exists originated from the same hunk of energy/matter, given the 'right' environments (what we 'think'), many of those, including rogue planets, have the potential to harbor microbial life. Did bacteria, or nanobes, etc. stem from the BB or are they distributed later? The question remains how many places can they survive, and can any of them evolve to intelligent life? It happened on Earth so can it, or, did it happen elsewhere?
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,478
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Amen. Surely this is one of the huge questions.

    Are we alone? Are humans the one single legacy of life in this entire universe? Is the end of the solar system also the end of life in this entire universe? Are there other life forms out there to carry the torch of life?

    If the Drake equation gets more people excited, I'm all in favor of that.
     
    OldManOnFire likes this.

Share This Page