Fermi Paradox

[questfortruth]

You must be born on a planet, which has got alive. The probability,
that at least one planet will get life is 90 % or more. Hence, the
probability, that the Earth will get alive were 90 % or more, if to
trace the history from Big Bang. Even at times, when the Earth was
just a hot melted lifeless lava. Hereby the probability, that a planet
with the perfect living conditions, gets life is very small, just
about 0.01 % or less. This disharmony between probabilities 90 -- 0.01
[caused by the human factor: humans are on Earth] explains why the life
in Universe is so much dispersed, that in the observable part of the Universe it
is not detectable yet. This is an explanation of the so-called
"Fermi Paradox", which asks the question "where are the aliens?".
Stop gazing at the night sky. There are no living planets in your part
of the Universe. Life had more chances on Earth.
Fermi Paradox is the contradiction between the Theory of Evolution and
the absence of detectable life in the cosmos.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Fermi Paradox isn't a paradox at all.
It's a question asked, with reasonable answers.
Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
1) Aliens don't visit us because space travel
between living worlds is hard...really hard.
It's possible that near light speed travel is impossible.
Expansion of the universe might make travel
between inhabited worlds entirely impossible.
2) Detecting life on other planets is also hard.
In Fermi's time, it would've been impossible.

 

[Estro Felino]

I have always thought of this reasoning:
Let's say there is a earth-like planet out there in some solar system, in some galaxy.

Nothing implies that on this planet life was born with the same modalities as our Earth.
We think of cells as the unit of life.
Nothing implies that similar units arose in those Earth-like planets.
If life really arose in some of these planets, it is very, very, very, very, very different than life on Earth.
An unfathomable difference.

So...whenever I read about those alien stories...with aliens looking identical to humans (two eyes, a nose, a mouth, two hands)...I find it extremely laughable.

 

[Estro Felino]

The Fermi Paradox isn't a paradox at all.
It's a question asked, with reasonable answers.
Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
1) Aliens don't visit us because space travel
between worlds with life is hard...really hard.
It's possible that near light speed travel is impossible.
Expansion of the universe might make travel
between inhabited worlds impossible.
2) Detecting life on other planets is also hard.
In Fermi's time, it would've been impossible.

Of course...if intelligent creatures do exist out there.
Nothing proves they do.

 

[Secret Chief]

1) Aliens don't visit us because space travel between living worlds is hard...really hard.

If you were an alien, would you want to visit us?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would we ever find a!iens? There is almost certainly alien life out there, but intelligent life may be extremely rare. Even on this planet intelligent life has existed at the most for a tenth of a percent of its existence. And I would go lower than that and say it was a hundredth of a percent. With a data set of one example the odds of intelligent life that is close enough to detect with our current technology is approaching zero.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you were an alien, would you want to visit us?

Ya, you betcha!
Consider that human explorers pursue new species
of ants, bats, birds, spiders, fish, etc, etc.
We'd fascinate someone out there.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Fermi Paradox is contradiction between Theory of Evolution and the absence of detectable life in cosmos.

The probability of life to appear on Earth is very high, but not 100 %. Perhaps, it is 90% chance, that the Earth will become place of living organisms, if we consider not today's day, but year 1 000 000 000 BC.

But the probability of life on Mars or any other Earth-like planet is near zero, perhaps 0.0001 %.

It is because it is inevitable, that the humans are happen to be on the planet, which has produced life.
So, the chances for Earth to produce life, starting from 1 000 000 000 BC were much higher, than the chances on some other Earth-like planet (it means, the planet perfectly suitable for living).

This solves the Fermi Paradox. Stop looking at night sky. There are no living planets. The life had more chances on Earth.

I am sure there is life elsewhere in our universe

 

[Estro Felino]

If you were an alien, would you want to visit us?

If Aliens really existed, they would have killed us all.
For destroying this beautiful Planet.

 

[Revoltingest]

If Aliens really existed, they would have killed us all.
For destroying this beautiful Planet.

You should see what they did to their own.
(It's why they're house hunting.)

 

[Secret Chief]

If Aliens really existed, they would have killed us all.
For destroying this beautiful Planet.

True. Maybe we'd have been just a tasty snack as they passed by.

 

[Heyo]

But the probability of life on Mars or any other Earth-like planet is near zero, perhaps 0.0001 %.

This solves the Fermi Paradox. Stop looking at night sky. There are no living planets. The life had more chances on Earth.

With an estimated 300,000,000,000 solar systems in our galaxy alone, even if only 1‰ of those systems has an earth-like planet, there are still 300 planets with life.

 

[questfortruth]

With an estimated 300,000,000,000 solar systems in our galaxy alone, even if only 1‰ of those systems has an earth-like planet, there are still 300 planets with life.

But my result is following. Suppose a researcher is placed in the past, at the 1 000 000 000 BC. There is no life on Earth or elsewhere. The Earth and other planets have nearly the same hostile to life conditions: acid rain, volcanos, etc. Nothing seems to make Earth any special. But the chances for life to get started on Earth are much higher, than on any planet, which is suitable for living.

 

[Heyo]

But my result is following. Suppose a researcher is placed in the past, at the 1 000 000 000 BC. There is no life on Earth

Wrong. Life on Earth is at least 3,500,000,000 years old.

or elsewhere.

You don't know that. There are solar systems, and with that planets, older than our solar system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But my result is following. Suppose a researcher is placed in the past, at the 1 000 000 000 BC. There is no life on Earth or elsewhere. The Earth and other planets have nearly the same hostile to life conditions: acid rain, volcanos, etc. Nothing seems to make Earth any special. But the chances for life to get started on Earth are much higher, than on any planet, which is suitable for living.

You may have your hands on an old creationist tract. They used to grossly underestimate the size of the "Goldilocks Zone". In fact there argument was self refuting since they made the zone smaller than the variation of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. In other words they made a zone so tight that the Earth was not in it.

 

[We Never Know]

How would we ever find a!iens? There is almost certainly alien life out there, but intelligent life may be extremely rare. Even on this planet intelligent life has existed at the most for a tenth of a percent of its existence. And I would go lower than that and say it was a hundredth of a percent. With a data set of one example the odds of intelligent life that is close enough to detect with our current technology is approaching zero.

Why do you think intelligent life may be extremely rare?

 

[We Never Know]

Wrong. Life on Earth is at least 3,500,000,000 years old.
You don't know that. There are solar systems, and with that planets, older than our solar system.

"You don't know that. There are solar systems, and with that planets, older than our solar system."

Yep. Millions/billions of years older.

 

[We Never Know]

With an estimated 300,000,000,000 solar systems in our galaxy alone, even if only 1‰ of those systems has an earth-like planet, there are still 300 planets with life.

300?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you think intelligent life may be extremely rare?

We only have a sample size of one but for 99.9% of Earth's history there was no intelligent life here. It would be nice to have more samples to extrapolate from.

 

[We Never Know]

We only have a sample size of one but for 99.9% of Earth's history there was no intelligent life here. It would be nice to have more samples to extrapolate from.

There are galaxies, solar systems, with planets millions/billions of years older than our own.
Life may exist in/on one of these. It could even be ahead of us on intelligence.