... If so, does the evidence support the assumption (probability) that we are not alone in the universe?

EDIT: meaning that the evidence supports not only past existence, but the current existence as well.

[This message has been edited by 92Notch (edited 06-27-2001).]

YES

------------------
Red 86 GT

Well, do we have a wide spread, socailly accepted proof that has been disclouse by the world government? no.

BUT, do we have a whole lot of circumstantial and partial evidence to support the possability and means for life? yes.

Do we also have a mandate from NASA that says that the discovery of lfie outside fo Earth woudl be a matter of 'grave national security.' And that such information and handling woudl be turned over the the NSA? (re: Brookings) Yes!

So it is HIGHLY unlikely you will hear government awknowledgement of anything like life existing outside of Earth anytime soon.

But going back to the means. Ten years ago, we know no extrasolar planets. Now we know 50ish. Did you know that even in the solar systems we've found, if any planets like the 'inner' planets in our soloar system existed, we couldn't detect them yet?

THAT IS AMAZING. There could be sooo many countless planets out there.

CHON. Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. These make up 4 of the 5 most common elements in the universe. The top 5 elements are responsible for over 90% of the mass in the universe.

Laboratory experiments have shown that running energy (sunlight, lightning etc) through these elements (CH4 and H20) cause them to form complex compunds. Proteins. These proteins form and form to make AMINO ACIDS.

I am 100% convinced that given enough time, these amino acids woudl form simple DNA. NO DOUBT. And we have done all but the last step. What remains? Time.

It si all possible.

------------------
Manu Narayan

Thanks for the correction Nate :-)

Regarding the sheer NUMBER of galaxies, another interesting thought, the milky way is a small to medium galazy...

------------------
Manu Narayan

True, but the factor of galaxy size is about 10 for larger galaxies, which is small compared to the 125 billion galaxies (especially when there are many that are smaller that ours too) In such crude calculations, the estimated billion galaxies is alot more significant.

Nate

Nate, all of your assumtions are based upon cabron based life-forms, correct? Any guesses as to the probability of discovering a non-carbon based life?? Big damned universe, you never know...

------------------
Uh, what country is this??

Of course, if we talk about non-carbon based life then we run into many other difficulties. Not the least of these difficulties is how to define life. However I do not want to speculate on this here, though if someone is interested go ahead and make a new topic or ask about it.

Carbon based life is so far the only life that I can conceive of that would be possible with any significant probability in this world. First of all, many people have proposed silicon based life, since it sits in a similar chemical position on the periodic table. Though I cannot refure this possibility, it is highly unlikely that any significant form of silicon based life could form based on what we know. Manu has already quoted the study on forming amino acids spontaneously in the laboratory under conditions similar to those in space. Well, the conditions in space do not produce Silicon in the same way as Carbon. It takes more and more fusions of atoms to make silicon, but carbon is made readily in the fusion processes of many stars. Thus, though carbon is common throughout space, silicon is not.

So, its true we will never know if silicon based life can exist, but the odds are so low that that should not be our main concern. As for life other than the basic carbon/organic element basis, I do not know of any other viable model. Organic molecules work because of the unique chemistry of carbon, relative to the abundant molecules of space. There may be other chemistries that produce molecules that can naturally reproduce themselves (DNA), but I know of none. So I think it is insignificant to consider seriously non-carbon based life as anything other than pure speculation and conjecture.

Nate

I guess I am supposed to moderate this forum and answer questions, but since everyone esle is doing such a good job, and I have been so busy at work, I have not had much need or opportunity to post yet.

Since this is an informational center, I did want to correct Manu on one thing... amino acids combine to form proteins, not the other way around. The lab experiment spontaneously produced amino acids.

Now, as for the probability that life exists now, it is difficult to estimate. However, I will give it a try.

Assume that the galaxy has 100 million stars. Then assume that only 1 in 100 stars has planets, and only 1 in 100 of those stars has a planet capable of supporting carbon based life. (There are most likely multiple planets per star) (These are all very conservative estimates) OK, so now, given that the question was originally about life now, we would have to estimate that only 1 in a thousand of these planets would actually support life as we know it at some time, and only 1 in 1000 support life NOW. If that is the case, then the expected number of planets in the galaxy that have life now, with these conservative estimates, is 10. That means that by these crude estimates, we are probably not alone. However, I would not trust these numbers too closely, since they are only speculation. However, there are 125 billion galaxies. So, in the universe, I do not believe that we can be alone. However, as for intelligent life that we will ever contact, I think the chances are slim. There are more intelligent estimates that take all of this into account, but I do not have the time to find them now.

Nate

[This message has been edited by Thutmose (edited 06-29-2001).]

Assumptions like those presented here are not a good basis for scientific analysis in my opinion. Finding the exact conditions necessary for earth life, "carbon life forms," somewhere in the universe is equivalent to finding a diamond on the beaches of Florida (not some Pat Buchanan voter's lost jewlery). That is like arguing, there are so many grains of sand and pebbles in Florida, one of them HAS to be a diamond.

Point being, let's not get the "theory of evolution" mixed up with life on earth or elsewhere. ET's could actually have been earlier inhabitants of earth or they could come from the Orions Belt as the Egytian pyramids would imply.

Originally posted by cosmic overdrive:
Assumptions like those presented here are not a good basis for scientific analysis in my opinion. Finding the exact conditions necessary for earth life, "carbon life forms," somewhere in the universe is equivalent to finding a diamond on the beaches of Florida (not some Pat Buchanan voter's lost jewlery). That is like arguing, there are so many grains of sand and pebbles in Florida, one of them HAS to be a diamond.

Point being, let's not get the "theory of evolution" mixed up with life on earth or elsewhere. ET's could actually have been earlier inhabitants of earth or they could come from the Orions Belt as the Egytian pyramids would imply.



Well, the Egyptian pyramids don't neccesarily "imply" anything. The simplest explanation is that it's just a coincidence. Nate, what's the scientific term that just means you should go with the simplest explanation? That's what I'm getting at here.

-Patrick

------------------
aka, Grand Master Wheat Thin
"The difference between an individual terrorist and a government in some cases may be simply that the former has a bomb but doesn't have an air force."
-William Blum

Occam's Razor?

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

Yeah, thanks, that's it.

-Patrick

------------------
aka, Grand Master Wheat Thin
"The difference between an individual terrorist and a government in some cases may be simply that the former has a bomb but doesn't have an air force."
-William Blum

That term has many different names, Occam's Razor is one of them I think. It also is called the principle of parsimony and principle of simplicity. However, it really isnt a scientific thing. It is just our desire that everything be as simple as we can make it. For example, our original laws of gravity that we believed in were the simplest that we understood. However, the real laws of gravity are more complicated...it took hundreds of years to figure this out. Even now, we know that these new, complicated laws are only approximations to the real laws. The real ones are too complicated for us to figure out. So, this principle is onl a guide, it is not a rule or anything like that.

Nate

Yeah, I never said it was a rule. It's just one of those things for if you don't have enough evidence to support a more complicated theory, you might as well stick with the simpler one. I actually hear it used more in the field of literary analysis, but I thought it was appropriate here as well.

-Patrick

------------------
aka, Grand Master Wheat Thin
"The difference between an individual terrorist and a government in some cases may be simply that the former has a bomb but doesn't have an air force."
-William Blum

Originally posted by cosmic overdrive:
Assumptions like those presented here are not a good basis for scientific analysis in my opinion. Finding the exact conditions necessary for earth life, "carbon life forms," somewhere in the universe is equivalent to finding a diamond on the beaches of Florida (not some Pat Buchanan voter's lost jewlery). That is like arguing, there are so many grains of sand and pebbles in Florida, one of them HAS to be a diamond.

Point being, let's not get the "theory of evolution" mixed up with life on earth or elsewhere. ET's could actually have been earlier inhabitants of earth or they could come from the Orions Belt as the Egytian pyramids would imply.



I am not sure I understand what you are getting at here. The Egyptian Pyramids, as Pat pointed out, do not imply anything of that nature. And also, I admit that I do not know enough to accurately figure out probabilities, but your analogy with the sand is not accurate. Proper use of statistics does lead to conclusions like mine. If there are 10^10 grains of sand in Florida, and somehow I determine that the probability that a grain of sand is actually a piece of diamond is 10^-9, then the chances are that there are 10 grains of sand that are actually diamonds. If the probability was actually determined to be much less, then the conclusion would be different. The problem comes in estimating the probabilities accurately. That is where my conclusions can be disputed, not necessarily in the procedure. Also, there is no "HAS" to be in my argument, simply the statistically expected number. Rather than looking at the exact number that I prduced (10), it is much more helpful to see that estimates would suggest that evolution supports life on other planets in the galaxy, but they would be so spread out that contact was highly unlikely.

I made intelligent guesses to determine the probabilities, and my assumptions that I only consider carbon based life forms and discard the possibility that aliens were previous Earth inhabitants were both based on interpretations of the evidence that we have. My numbers were estimates based on evolution and not theories without any proof or evidence. This type of procedure is done by scientists and engineers on a regular basis...it is what allowed us to know what we do know, o at least think that we know, about things that we cannot actually perform an experiment on.

Finally, everything that I said was mere conjecture and estimation, not science. There was no tests in this, simply extrapolation of what we already believe to a different situation. If further evidence suggests a change in one of the probabilities, then that would need to be accounted for.

Nate

Originally posted by PatTheAnarChrist:
Yeah, I never said it was a rule. It's just one of those things for if you don't have enough evidence to support a more complicated theory, you might as well stick with the simpler one. I actually hear it used more in the field of literary analysis, but I thought it was appropriate here as well.

-Patrick




Yeah, it is actually a philosophical theory proposed by William Occam, and has been used in many fields on a regular basis (even as a "proof" for the existence of god). I didnt mean to suggest that you thought it was a rule, I simply was going off on one of my rants spreading some useless knowledge to whoever wants to know it.

Nate

Do we have evidence? Well yes we do, very good and very credible evidence. Look here---> http://www.disclosureproject.org/

And if we don't have the technology to re-create the pyramids today, just how in the hell was it done 4-10k years ago if it wasn't extraterrestrials?

------------------
Red 86 GT

But mere coincidence that it was built in line of three stars?

Possible. Yes. Doubtful. Maybe?

So doesn't that make aliens from orion POSSIBLE? Yes.

------------------
Manu Narayan

Oh yea, scientists still haven't figured out how electricity works, just how are we supposed to know if Aliens were not here thousands of years ago? I think there is plenty of evidence they were, it just seems some people tend to not want to see the obvious. Should I bring up the Nazca lines? Care to explain to me which earthlings built those?


From the disclosure project webpage..
THE DISCLOSURE PROJECT CALLS ON U.S. CONGRESS
FOR HEARINGS & LEGISLATION

To hold open, secrecy-free hearings on the UFO / Extraterrestrial presence on and around Earth.

To hold open hearings on advanced energy and propulsion systems that, when publicly released, will provide solutions to global environmental challenges.

To enact legislation which will ban all space-based weapons.

To enact comprehensive legislation to research, develop and explore space peacefully and cooperatively with all cultures on Earth and in space.

Project Description...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MILITARY, GOVERNMENT WITNESSES
TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY ON
UFO/EXTRATERRESTRIAL PRESENCE -
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION SOUGHT


On Wednesday, May 9th, over twenty military, intelligence, government, corporate and scientific witnesses will come forward at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to establish the reality of UFOs or extraterrestrial vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and resulting advanced energy and propulsion technologies. The weight of this first-hand testimony, along with supporting government documentation and other evidence, will establish without any doubt the reality of these phenomena, according to Dr. Steven M. Greer, director of the Disclosure Project which is hosting the event. More Information...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself."

- Senator Daniel K. Inouye


"In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."

- President Eisenhower - January 1961

------------------
Red 86 GT

[This message has been edited by Corporate Avenger (edited 07-03-2001).]

Originally posted by Manu:
But mere coincidence that it was built in line of three stars?

Possible. Yes. Doubtful. Maybe?

So doesn't that make aliens from orion POSSIBLE? Yes.




The pyramids on Mars ( I relly doubt the ancient Egyptians built them) are lined up the same way. Also there is a small tunnel coming from the center of one of the pyramids that points right at Orions belt too. The cuts through the stones are so exact where the tunnel passes it would have to be an act of God to pull it off. Unless it was my little friends from above http://discussanything.com/Ubb/smile.gif



------------------
Red 86 GT

Originally posted by Manu:
But mere coincidence that it was built in line of three stars?

Possible. Yes. Doubtful. Maybe?

So doesn't that make aliens from orion POSSIBLE? Yes.



I never said that alien origins were not possible, I merely do not think that it is the most likely explanation that I can arrive at. I still think that it is VERY doubtful that aliens have visited Earth. Maybe there is evidence that I do not know, but whenever there are mysteries there is not the need to invoke the supernatural/extraterrestrial. Some things are mysteries that are not explained yet, or maybe will never be explained. I currently am looking at a magnetic effect in my lab, and NO scientist understands why or how it does what it does. However, no one is concluding that it is of supernatural or extraterrestrial origin, it is simply something we do not know.

As for Orion, I agree that the pyramids were probably lined up to look like Orion's belt. The Orion constellation represents the egyptian god Horus (i think), who was the patron god of the kings of egypt. I fully agree that cosmic symbolism was added to the Gizs pyramids. But that does not lead to the conclusion that extraterrestrials built the pyramids. Maybe they did, but I also feel that it was fully possible that humans did.

I personally feel that extraterrestrial explanation is not my BASE explanation (just like divine intervention is not my basic explanation for "miracles" that I cannot explain). I PERSONALLY will continue to accept other explanations until the evidence sways me to the other side. I cannot say that I truly believe that we have been visited by aliens yet. Therefore, I will seek other explanations of phenomena until that is the only logical one that I have left. If others choose to base their opinions differently, that is fine. However, I will still think that I am right until I see more evidence (just the same that I would think with a religious problem), as I am sure the same is true for you.

Nate

If there are aliens, and they are not making contact, that is not a good sign. We must be to uncivilized or dangerous for them. But thats the way it goes.

I'm not going to argue the possibility of life beyond earth; I would be surprised if there wasn't.

Unfortunately I know something about Einstein’s theories. We might control gravity someday, but We wont travel faster than light, not even close and neither will anyone or any living organism. The things that might make that possible aren't survivable. Extra terrestrials have never visited us and we will never meet extra terrestrials.

They haven't? Where did you get this information from?
http://www.disclosureproject.org/

------------------
Red 86 GT


"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
Benito "Il Duce" Mussolini

u8-

How can ya say never? Everything of einsteins is a theory...

------------------
Manu Narayan

Einstein’s theorems still hold water after 60 years. Hawkings mumblings look for loopholes. Everything Hawkings suggests is not survivable. And besides that I’m not comfortable with anybody from Andromeda getting an H1-B and coming here to saturate the job market.

We might get anti gravity though.

GRAVITY'S GRAVITY. A new experiment at the University of Washington seeks to determine whether the gravitational binding energy of an object generates gravity of its own. As formulated by Albert Einstein, the Equivalence Principle (EP) states that if we stand in a closed room we cannot tell whether the weight we feel is the result of gravity pulling down or the force of a rocket carrying us forward through otherwise empty space. All of this gets complicated in some theories of gravity, which predict that the EP will be violated to a small degree since in addition to the usual gravity, carried from place to place by spin-two particles called gravitons, there should exist another, fainter kind of gravity carried by spin-zero particles (sometimes called dilatons). For this reason, and because recent observations of supernovas suggest that some repulsive gravitational effects might be at work in the cosmos, scientists want to explore the possibility of EP violations. Three decades of lunar laser ranging (bouncing light off reflectors placed on the Moon) show that the Moon and the Earth fall toward the Sun with the same acceleration to within half a part in a trillion (10^12). What the Washington physicists (Eric Adelberger, 206-543-4294, eric@gluon.npl.washington.edu) have done is focus attention on the subject of gravitational binding energy, or self-energy, and whether it too obeys the EP. To illustrate the concept of binding energy, consider that the mass of an alpha particle is actually about 28 MeV less than the sum of its constituents. This energy (about 7.6 parts in a thousand of the alpha mass) represents the energy (vested in the strong nuclear force) needed to hold two protons and two neutrons together inside the alpha. Gravity being very much weaker than the strong nuclear force, the gravitational binding energy, the self-energy of gravity attraction, is almost infinitesimal. For example, self- energy effectively reduces the mass energy of the Earth by a factor of only about 4.6 parts in 10^10. Is this tiny "mass" also subject to the EP? Supplementing existing lunar laser ranging results with new data from special test masses mounted on a sensitive torsion balance (see www.aip.org/physnews/graphics) (http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics)) to take into account the different compositions of the Earth and Moon, the Washington physicists show that gravitational self energy does obey the equivalence principle at the level of at least one part in a thousand. Thus gravitational self energy does indeed generate its own gravity. (Baessler et al., Physical Review Letters, 1 November; see also Clifford Will's article, Physics Today, Oct 1999.)

There is mountains of evidence Aliens have been here, to say they never have or never will is simply rediculous.

It does not matter one bit where our technology is, or where we think it can go. A civilization that is thousands, millions of years more advanced than us could be capable of things we can't even comprehend. Human conciousness is in it's infancy. I'm sure a 100 years ago if you told someone what we'd be capable of today you would probably be called a nut. NASA is said to have a shapeshifting spacecraft ready in 20 years. Just think about that. Imagine where we will be in a 100.. 500.. 10,000 years!?! I think it's very easy to see how we have and will continue to be visited.

Btw, the speed of light has already been broken in a lab, and the speculation about secret government technology has us already able to travel at half the speed of light.

------------------
Red 86 GT


"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
Benito "Il Duce" Mussolini

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger:

Btw, the speed of light has already been broken in a lab, and the speculation about secret government technology has us already able to travel at half the speed of light.



The experiment about light speed being passed is not conclusive or even regarded as the outcome of that experiment. Also, where is this speculation about secret government technology?

What do you mean? I read they shot the laser 3 times the speed of light through the lab?

As far as secret government technology, I heard some guy (can't remember his name) last week on the radio claiming this. Whether he is right or not I know we have some really high tech stuff the government won't acknowledge like pulse detonation engines?

------------------
Red 86 GT


"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
Benito "Il Duce" Mussolini

I dont know where I heard that about the light speed thing, but I will ask one of my professors who had mentioned it before. As for pulse engines, we have had the technology to do nuclear pulse engines for 50 years, but we never have since they are costly and violate some nuclear ban. However, with the engines designed 50 years ago, we could propel ships to any fraction of the speed of light, given enough time.