Do you think Aliens Exist?

[gmilam]

You are absolutely right. I was using the word "personally" in "[p]ersonally I think there is other life in the universe . . ." to indicate that that was my subjective belief, not something I believe is compelled by the evidence. In other words, I do not believe there is any strictly logical proof that I am correct in my belief, as that too would require more knowledge about how life arose on Earth (and how it might arise elsewhere) than we actually have.

It would ultimately require that we know more about the very first, pre-life, self-replicating molecules that formed and the likelihood of self-replicating molecules forming under a variety of possible conditions.

Bingo! We have limited knowledge of one example. But, unless you want to invoke a supernatural entity, then we have to assume we arose by natural process. If it happened here, it could happen elsewhere. Combining that with the size of the universe leads me to suspect (as opposed to believe) that life has probably happened elsewhere.

 

[adoucette]

@adoucette --

In your first link it mentions abiogenesis occurring in the oceans due to solar irradiance, and while this is the most commonly accepted theory it's far from the only one. Another good source of energy for abiogenesis would have been thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean, so even without the moon hitting the FF button through increased tides, abiogenesis still could have occurred. And your second link states the same thing but actually goes on to refute your position that the moon was vital for abiogenesis by explicitly stating that all the moon did was speed up the process.

To say that it was a vital component for life is a gross exaggeration. The moon may have been necessary for intelligent life to emerge as quickly as it did(though we can't even say that for sure because we have a sample size of one), but that's not the same thing as the moon being vital for the emergence of life itself. Taking longer to occur is not the same thing as not occurring.

(Hint: It's usually a good idea to actually read the entire article you're citing to support your argument.)

Do you have any links which make better arguments, you know, ones that might actually support your position? Or is this what pretty much all of them say?

The question you asked is if I just made it up that a good case could be made that without the moon life on earth might not be possible.

I just posted a few links to show that I didn't as you suggested, "pull it out of my ass".

I did a quick search and didn't find any great hits but enough for you to see that the idea has been long discussed as to the severe negative impact on the earth's climate, and thus evolution of complex life, if there were no moon as large as ours is.

If you are interested you can find much more along those lines.

The Moon has been a stabilizing factor for the axis of rotation of the Earth. If you look at Mars, for instance, that planet has wobbled quite dramatically on its axis over time due to the gravitational influence of all the other planets in the solar system. Because of this obliquity change, the ice that is now at the poles on Mars would sometimes drift to the equator. But the Earth’s moon has helped stabilize our planet so that its axis of rotation stays in the same direction. For this reason, we had much less climatic change than if the Earth had been alone. And this has changed the way life evolved on Earth, allowing for the emergence of more complex multi-cellular organisms compared to a planet where drastic climatic change would allow only small, robust organisms to survive.

http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=2507

Arthur

 

[Arioch]

From the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"The Universe-some information to help you live in it.

Area: Infinite.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy offers this definition of the word "Infinite".

Infinite: Bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some. Much bigger than that in fact, really amazingly immense, a totally stunning size, "wow, that's big", time. Infinity is just so big that by comparison, bigness itself looks really titchy. Gigantic multiplied by colossal multiplied by staggeringly huge is the sort of concept we're trying to get across here.

Population: None.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."

@adoucette --

Your argument was that life on Earth wouldn't be possible if it weren't for the moon, however none of your links back that up. Was the moon an important factor in the evolution of life? Of course it was, something that size near the planet would have an effect on just about everything. However that does not prove it to be a vital component for abiogenesis.

The arguments made by the scientists in the links you posted are fine, I'm not arguing with them. But each one of them so far as outright contradicted you by saying that the presence of the moon merely sped up the process, that the process was already under way. And even that is just considering one of the possible theories of abiogenesis. Bottom line is this, you made a statement and none of the links you posted to back it up actually do.

 

[Boris2]

2. Even if you could know this you'd have to explain just how you discovered that our planet and circumstances are unique in all the cosmos as this implies a knowledge source beyond even Google.

i try to keep the discussion somewhat within the realms of science and what is possible. so therefore i limit my speculations on aliens to this galaxy. and even then to locales that are relatively close by. it is really pointless speculating on what may be on the "other side" of an infinite universe or even in another galaxy.

 

[Pineal]

i try to keep the discussion somewhat within the realms of science and what is possible.

I am not sure those two realms are compatible. Speculation about what is possible is not science. It might contribute to research, in early stages, but here is just a bunch of wild guesses on most people's parts. The moment someone weighs in on liklihood, it has nothing to do with science.

 

[adoucette]

@adoucette --

Your argument was that life on Earth wouldn't be possible if it weren't for the moon, however none of your links back that up. Was the moon an important factor in the evolution of life? Of course it was, something that size near the planet would have an effect on just about everything. However that does not prove it to be a vital component for abiogenesis.

Ah, I see your issue.

My bad.

I was discussing this in the same context as with gmilam and NF in relation to the Drake Equation.

it then took 4 billion years to evolve into an intelligent species that could communicate (which is what we are discussing)

I'm not saying that the moon was required for abiogenesis, that life itself couldn't have formed on the earth without the moon being here, but that it took the stabilizing effect of the moon on our climate and our seasons for life to be able to progress to the advanced level that it has.

ie. without the moon we wouldn't have made it to level of the advanced civilizations as specified in the Drake Equation. Thus no communication with other off planet civilizations.

Turn that around that would imply that other planets in other solar systems without the same stabilizing force of our very large moon, which is quite possibly a very rare occurrence, would not provide a sufficiently stable climate for advanced civilizations to form.

Arthur

 

[Diode-Man]

Do you think, that amonst the stars, there are other life forms? could aliens have visited Earth? Share your answer and explain!

There is a LOT of alien life in the Universe but none of it has come in contact with our planet.

 

[Gustav]

he moment someone weighs in on liklihood, it has nothing to do with science.

indeed

The concept has been given an axiomatic mathematical derivation in probability theory, which is used widely in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, artificial intelligence/machine learning and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the likeliness of events. Probability is used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.​

damn woo woos

There is a LOT of alien life in the Universe but none of it has come in contact with our planet.

how do you know that?
were you around...say...a billion years ago?

Turn that around that would imply that other planets in other solar systems without the same stabilizing force of our very large moon, which is quite possibly a very rare occurrence, would not provide a sufficiently stable climate for advanced civilizations to form.

Arthur

citations please

 

[Pineal]

ndeed

The concept has been given an axiomatic mathematical derivation in probability theory, which is used widely in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, artificial intelligence/machine learning and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the likeliness of events. Probability is used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.​

damn woo woos

Notice how in those examples we are talking about situations where we have good control of the various factors involved. When wildly speculating about extraterrestrial life, we are projecting from ONE EXAMPLE - our little planet - and have many, many factors we are like some blindfolded drunk in a bar spinning on his heels and throwing his dart.

You are actually the woo woo in this case, thinking you can apply what works in certain, better controlled situations to ones that are not like it. I'll agree my quote could have been taken as general about probability and science, but I am talking about this kind of situation, where we have no idea what a lot of the numbers are that you toss into the nice neat formulas. We don't know, for example, the range of ways and conditions within intelligent species can arise. So we work from parameters based on ourselves. We don't know how big the universe is. We don't know what the next 50 years of advances in technology in our own civilization will allow us to do (and for all we know we are one of the slow learning species in the universe) let alone the thousands if not millions of years other civilizations may have had.

And then you have the real woo woos here who THINK THEY CAN ELIMINATE THE EXISTENCE OF ALIENS, by talking about their potential behavior and motivations. Oh, if they existed they would.....

LOL. Talk about woo woo.

You guys are guessing. Which is fine. But it has nothing to with science or the probability stuff none of you even claim to be using and would find rather useless on this issue.

I know you think you are on the rational team, Gustav, and I am on the woo woo team, but I think people on the rational team who are in fact rational would be just as skeptical as I am.

And, of course, when the people you call woo woos weigh in on probabilities, on this issue, they are also throwing darts in their friends faces.

 

[Gustav]

its funny how the church of scientism consists of devout and fanatical parishioners that probably never even wrote let alone understand simple math equations

 

[Arioch]

It's funny how you woos always accuse people who refute your claims of "scientism" when all they're doing is helping you. Especially since it's virtually always a baseless claim.

 

[Gustav]

lets eyeball arioch and his pseudoscientific ilk in action...

Similarly, an appendix to the 1968 symposium hearings on UFOs provided a scientific method for assessing the reliability of the perceptions of those who claimed to have seen a UFO. Included as an example of the method's efficacy was the detailed evaluation of a thirty-seven-year-old unmarried white man who reported a large luminous disk hovering over Tucson at 3:00 A.M., November 17, 1967. "The Applied Assessment of Central Nervous System Integrity: A Method for Establishing the Creditability of Eye Witness and Other Observers" provides a thorough medical history and the results of a physical examination, laboratory studies of the man's urine and blood, a neurologic evaluation, a qualitative ophthalmologic examination, and a quantitative neuro-ophthalmologic investigation. It concludes that heavy smoking and the early stages of alcoholism damaged the witness's eyes so as to make his sighting "highly unlikely."

Results from the physical examination alone were said to indicate the probability of misperception. Nonetheless, the witness was subjected to a psychiatric evaluation, too. Although the report acknowledges the man's college education, exemplary record as a bank employee, and sense of responsibility, it finds more significance in the fact that "he was breast fed for nearly two years because his mother couldn't afford to buy store milk"; that he was "more than once called a `mamma's boy' by his peers"; and that his sexual activity was limited to masturbating once a week to the fantasy of removing the "round, plastic, chartreuse nipple covers" from a belly dancer who performed at a local bar. On the basis of these tests, the probability of the man's credibility was estimated at 5 percent, putting him in the "extremely impaired category."

Dr. Sydney Walker, the author of the assessment method, observes that without these tests, the witness might have seemed highly credible because of his respectable bank position, general demeanor, and claim to good health. Thanks to the medical evaluation, however, the witness is discredited as a sexually dysfunctional alcoholic and the sighting is explained as "an acute illusory phenomenon in which his regressed oral yearning for his mother was symbolically represented in the `light.' That the object took the color and shape it did (like the nipple covers) further demonstrates [the witness's] all-pervasive oral fixation."​

/chortle

 

[wynn]

Do you think, that amonst the stars, there are other life forms? could aliens have visited Earth? Share your answer and explain!

There are no "aliens."

There is one existence and one Universe.

Whatever beings exist, exist in this Universe, not outside.


Philosophy trumps empiricism, case closed.

 

[Gustav]

When wildly speculating about extraterrestrial life, we are projecting from ONE EXAMPLE - our little planet - and have many, many factors we are like some blindfolded drunk in a bar spinning on his heels and throwing his dart.

your exaggerations indicate pathology. you must be a devout christian with some sense of biblical uniqueness

there is a method to the "madness"

When looking for life on other planets, some simplifying assumptions are useful to reduce the size of the task of the astrobiologist. One is to assume that the vast majority of life forms in our galaxy are based on carbon chemistries, as are all life forms on Earth. While it is possible that non-carbon-based life forms exist, carbon is well known for the unusually wide variety of molecules that can be formed around it. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe and the energy required to make or break a bond is just at an appropriate level for building molecules which are not only stable, but also reactive. The fact that carbon atoms bond readily to other carbon atoms allows for the building of arbitrarily long and complex molecules.

The presence of liquid water is a useful assumption, as it is a common molecule and provides an excellent environment for the formation of complicated carbon-based molecules that could eventually lead to the emergence of life. Some researchers posit environments of ammonia, or more likely, water-ammonia mixtures.

A third assumption is to focus on sun-like stars. This comes from the idea of planetary habitability. Very big stars have relatively short lifetimes, meaning that life would not likely have time to evolve on planets orbiting them. Very small stars provide so little heat and warmth that only planets in very close orbits around them would not be frozen solid, and in such close orbits these planets would be tidally "locked" to the star. Without a thick atmosphere, one side of the planet would be perpetually baked and the other perpetually frozen. In 2005, the question was brought back to the attention of the scientific community, as the long lifetimes of red dwarfs could allow some biology on planets with thick atmospheres. This is significant, as red dwarfs are extremely common.​

what i see here is a methodology that is consistent with the "goals" of science.

and yes we project since it is actually not unreasonable to do so. why get bogged down in say a silicon based life form when we do not even have a precedence on which to base this speculation?

Silicon also has the formidable disadvantage of being less abundant in the universe. The birthplace of all heavier elements—older stars—tend to produce far more carbon than silicon. Thus the likelihood of a living system to evolve based on silicon is lower based on the sheer rarity of naturally produced silicon compared to carbon. In fact, astronomical observations of the spectra of various stars and nebulae reveal that organic carbon ring structures (also known as polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAH’s) exist even in the far reaches of space. In a laboratory at NASA Ames Research Center, NAI astrochemist Lou Allamandola simulates the conditions under which it is believed these PAH’s are produced in space. His experiments have yielded a variety of carbon-based, biologically interesting molecules​

You guys are guessing. Which is fine. But it has nothing to with science or the probability stuff none of you even claim to be using and would find rather useless on this issue.

hilarious
uranus wobbles. astronomers guess (theorize) neptune and pluto

damn armchair debunkers.

shermer, a psychologist
randi, a magician
pineal, an entrepreneur
arioch, dazed and confused

all self-appointed reps of the grand ole institution of science lecturing academia on how to conduct themselves. frakkin charlatans and media whores.

/sneer

 

[Arioch]

When did I say that I don't think that life exists? Oh that's right, never. Given the shear size of the universe and the common nature of life's important compounds, it's incredibly likely that there is some form of life out there. What I did say was that the shear enormity of the universe also makes it extremely unlikely that, if there is life out there, it is visiting us.

 

[Gustav]

of course
aliens have to originate from the furthest possible points in the universe

/smirk

 

[Aqueous Id]

I think the question is fundamentally flawed as follows.

When we speculate that there may be life elsewhere, we are finding similarity, in other words, the conditions are similar, for example. That part is fine.

But then when we jump to the sci-fi part, and inject a difference: the aliens do not resemble the common life form, say bacteria or a sponge, they are somehow superior to humans and have conquered the speed of light.

Aliens? No idea. Uber-aliens? probably not.

 

[fiction_is_science]

I think aliens / other species exist in this world. I find it hard to believe that we are alone in the whole universe. Wouldn't that be the biggest waste of space you have ever seen? Like Aqueous stated, super aliens probably don't exist cause if they did, we'd know by now. Now reason for them to hide from us if they were already superior.

 

[Pineal]

your exaggerations indicate pathology. you must be a devout christian with some sense of biblical uniqueness

Bad guess, but I see you are consistent in being a guesser.

there is a method to the "madness"

When looking for life on other planets, some simplifying assumptions are useful to reduce the size of the task of the astrobiologist. One is to assume that the vast majority of life forms in our galaxy are based on carbon chemistries, as are all life forms on Earth.

Oh, nice. So you guys have a priori like the theists. Cool.

While it is possible that non-carbon-based life forms exist, carbon is well known for the unusually wide variety of molecules that can be formed around it.

LOL. Cute bolded bias confirming precisely what I said. Guesswork based on a sample of one planet. Cool.

Thank you for going into detail and confirming my points.

Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe and the energy required to make or break a bond is just at an appropriate level for building molecules which are not only stable, but also reactive. The fact that carbon atoms bond readily to other carbon atoms allows for the building of arbitrarily long and complex molecules.

The presence of liquid water is a useful assumption, as it is a common molecule and provides an excellent environment for the formation of complicated carbon-based molecules that could eventually lead to the emergence of life. Some researchers posit environments of ammonia, or more likely, water-ammonia mixtures.

And it goes on.

A third assumption is to focus on sun-like stars. This comes from the idea of planetary habitability. Very big stars have relatively short lifetimes, meaning that life would not likely have time to evolve on planets orbiting them. Very small stars provide so little heat and warmth that only planets in very close orbits around them would not be frozen solid, and in such close orbits these planets would be tidally "locked" to the star. Without a thick atmosphere, one side of the planet would be perpetually baked and the other perpetually frozen. In 2005, the question was brought back to the attention of the scientific community, as the long lifetimes of red dwarfs could allow some biology on planets with thick atmospheres. This is significant, as red dwarfs are extremely common.

what i see here is a methodology that is consistent with the "goals" of science.

Yup, it is a methodology, thank you, consistent with the goals of science, but not the procedures. What we have is speculation based on assumptions, a number not even mentioned in the above. A deduction of liklihood, building from a sample of one.

and yes we project since it is actually not unreasonable to do so. why get bogged down in say a silicon based life form when we do not even have a precedence on which to base this speculation?

Nice shift of burden there. You have been learning from the theists. You are making the assumptions. You are assuming that life must follow something very close to the path and structures ours has.

You have not addressed size of universe issues no how long other civilizations may have had to develop. These affect many of the speculations of your fellow woo woos. Along with their hilarious assumptions about what the alien races would do and be like. A lack of a sample does not prevent them speculating on extrapsychologically.

hilarious
uranus wobbles. astronomers guess (theorize) neptune and pluto

Um.. This was actually disingenous. Here we are dealing with a system with relatively few variables and they could see something was affecting the planet. So we are working with Newton's laws, low number of variables, not many forces in play. This has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Working with what seemed to be regular gravitational perturbances they could balance out anomalies in the movements of other observable planets. This has almost nothing in common with a situation where we are dealing with potentially _________(I would be guessing at the number) of variables, in a universe who size we are not sure of, where the potential technologies of other species are assumed (by your fellow woo wooers with no comments by you and also how such species would necessarily act. But I am glad it proved something for you, this picking a relatively simple situation with a very limited set of variables. You really are woo woo. Or you like to fight dirty, like many faith-based believers. Or seriously, were you so stupid as to think I was anti-science. You really are an ass.

damn armchair debunkers.

shermer, a psychologist
randi, a magician
pineal, an entrepreneur
arioch, dazed and confused

all self-appointed reps of the grand ole institution of science lecturing academia on how to conduct themselves.

1) Wow nice straw man! I never told anyone how to conduct themselves. I told people what I think they are doing, guessing. 2) you aren't academia. Your just some guy. And given the outer planets example, which for some reason you thought was relevent, you are a) clearly not a working scientist of any kind b) not very clear about either epistemology or the methodology of science. Talk about apples and bicycles.

Seriously Gustav. You are coming off like a fundamentalist and are ad homming me, for some reason.

And gosh, no, I don't think you should be banned for it, I'd prefer to ad hom back.

But now I will put you on ignore.

 

[Gustav]

Oh, nice. So you guys have a priori like the theists. Cool.

sure. deductions/inferences/assumptions are all part of the methodology of science and in some sciences, astrobiology, astronomy and geology. they figure quite prominently.

does the High Priest of Science, Lord Pineal, disapprove?

LOL. Cute bolded bias confirming precisely what I said. Guesswork based on a sample of one planet. Cool.

/puzzled

we have carbon based life forms here on earth. carbon signatures have been inferred by various methods to exists all around the known universe. tho we do not know how carbon molecules made the transition to lifeforms, lets run simulations. do trial and error. lets do something other than mindlessly fret about enormities of scale and magnitudes of variables. since this transition actually happened here on earth, it is illogical to think it cannot happen elsewhere

You have not addressed size of universe issues no how long other civilizations may have had to develop

a single fossil would do and the size of the universe is irrelevant especially when some decent contenders have been postulated to exist relatively close by

here is how simple the variables can be....N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

go on
plug in some figures

The observable universe contains about 3 to 100 × 1022 stars (30 sextillion to a septillion stars), organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.​

triple the variables. be conservative as you want to be
you will still get fucked

I told people what I think they are doing, guessing.

all scientists do that. the good ones just put some rigor into that effort and understand it is just part of the process. however i understand where you pseudoscientists come from, if you cannot strike it with a hammer.............