Fermi Paradox

[Heyo]

300?

300,000,000,000 * 1‰ * 0.0001 % = 300.
With 1‰ of solar systems having an Earth-like planet. (A very conservative estimation, just to be on the save side) and 0.0001 % being @questfortruth's estimation of the probability of life occurring on an Earth-like planet (an even more conservative estimation).
And even with these very small numbers, there are still probably 300 planets with life on them alone in our galaxy.

 

[questfortruth]

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.

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 so much dispersed, that in observable part of Universe it
is not detectable yet. This is explanation of the so called
"Fermi Paradox", which asks the question "there are the aliens?".
Stop gazing at night sky. There are no living planets in your part
of Universe. The life had more chances on Earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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 so much dispersed, that in observable part of Universe it
is not detectable yet. This is explanation of the so called
"Fermi Paradox", which asks the question "there are the aliens?".
Stop gazing at night sky. There are no living planets in your part
of Universe. The life had more chances on Earth.

I will agree that it is highly unlikely that we will detect alien life. We can detect planets that may have life on them ,but we are not able to detect signs of life on planets, but that does not seem totally unlikely. But just because one detects signs of life is in now way an indicator that one has found signs of intelligent life. Those are two very different things.

 

[questfortruth]

has found signs of intelligent life

Who is most intelligent:
1. Adolf Hitler,
2. Albert Einstein?
Who is less intelligent?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No doubt. I am fairly sure that some of them are. What I am saying is that it won't be like Star Trek with intelligent life on almost every planet. Or at least in every solar system. The odds are huge that elsewhere in the universe there will be more advanced and more intelligent species than man. We just may never find them. Space is huge and has an almost endless number of stars in it. So that means that even an event with a very low likelihood is apt to happen multiple times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who is most intelligent:
1. Adolf Hitler,
2. Albert Einstein?
Who is less intelligent?

Don't know and it is off topic.

 

[questfortruth]

Don't know and it is off topic.

Trust my opinion: Hitler is absolute bottom. Einstein is near the top.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trust my opinion: Hitler is absolute bottom. Einstein is near the top.

Now you are conflating intelligence with evil.

 

[Estro Felino]

300,000,000,000 * 1‰ * 0.0001 % = 300.
With 1‰ of solar systems having an Earth-like planet. (A very conservative estimation, just to be on the save side) and 0.0001 % being @questfortruth's estimation of the probability of life occurring on an Earth-like planet (an even more conservative estimation).
And even with these very small numbers, there are still probably 300 planets with life on them alone in our galaxy.

These are still conjectures.
Nothing proves there is intelligent life in any of these 300. Evolution is not something that happens automatically.

 

[Estro Felino]

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.

Nothing proves there are.
It is just probability. So I guess "there are no 300 planets with life", until evidence of the contrary is provided.

 

[Estro Felino]

I will agree that it is highly unlikely that we will detect alien life. We can detect planets that may have life on them ,but we are not able to detect signs of life on planets, but that does not seem totally unlikely. But just because one detects signs of life is in now way an indicator that one has found signs of intelligent life. Those are two very different things.

I think that carbon chemistry is so unique that it can't be present in other earth-like planets.
And even if is, nothing implies the organic chemistry gave birth to cells. Or similar units.

There can be other kinds of organic chemistry, other than carbon.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I hope he packed a lunch.

 

[Estro Felino]

If in space there are such unique proteins, imagine how different and unique life on other planets can be.
Hemolithin - Wikipedia

 

[Heyo]

These are still conjectures.

Nobody said something else. I just wanted to show that even with odds of 1 against 1,000,000, there is still a good chance when you have 300,000,000 planets.

Nothing proves there is intelligent life in any of these 300.

Who said anything about intelligent life? Not me.

Evolution is not something that happens automatically.

Evolution is something that happens naturally if there is something that
- self replicates
- replication is not perfect
- errors in replication are inheritable
- there is a selection mechanism.

 

[firedragon]

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 so much dispersed, that in observable part of Universe it
is not detectable yet. This is explanation of the so called
"Fermi Paradox", which asks the question "there are the aliens?".
Stop gazing at night sky. There are no living planets in your part
of Universe. The life had more chances on Earth.

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

You are not addressing evolution. you are address abiogenesis.

 

[blü 2]

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.

If you mean that given the many septillions of planets thought to be in the universe, the odds of self-reproducing cells forming and evolving on at least one of them are high, then that seems fair.

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 so much dispersed, that in observable part of Universe it is not detectable yet.

For the last three or four billion years the chances of life on earth have been 1.0.

This is explanation of the so called "Fermi Paradox", which asks the question "there are the aliens?".

They may not have evolved an equivalent to H sap.
They may live underground and never go to the surface.
They may think it wise to conceal their existence against the threat of marauding beings from other planets.
It may have occurred to them that since they can't find a way to travel faster than light either, there's no point in communicating with other beings when each message will take a thousand or more years to arrive, and another for any reply to come back.
Their civilization may have risen and fallen a million or a billion years ago.
Or it may not rise for another million or billion years.

And so on.

The contradiction of the theory of evolution you speak of is not supported by any evidence at all.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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 so much dispersed, that in observable part of Universe it
is not detectable yet. This is explanation of the so called
"Fermi Paradox", which asks the question "there are the aliens?".
Stop gazing at night sky. There are no living planets in your part
of Universe. The life had more chances on Earth.

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

You might have better success if you at least checked your posts for errors - given that you probably meant 'where are the aliens?' - and also given that you can alter your post up to a day before it is fixed in time. Anyone not doing so perhaps will be regarded as simply careless and not fit to propose anything serious.

 

[tom foolery]

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.

but a possibility is that aliens do not travel between worlds but between realities. even modern science theorises an infinite amount of other realities. can't say i have ever met one myself, though. but when you think about the fact that we can't even explain how a bumblebee can fly with our understanding of physics, we have got a lot of holes in our understanding.

 

[Revoltingest]

....we can't even explain how a bumblebee can fly with our understanding of physics, we have got a lot of holes in our understanding.

That's just an old wive's tale.
The Bumblebee Flight Myth - Animal Dynamics.

 

[idea]

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.

The new James Webb telescope will be looking for planets with pollution as an indication of life.

Detectability of Chlorofluorocarbons in the Atmospheres of Habitable M-dwarf Planets