Where Is Everybody? Where Are The Aliens?

[Guy Threepwood]

All I see is an airborne Groundskeeper Willie.

Darn, well would this do it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

All your numbers are guesses.
We don't know all the criteria for life.
No final calculation.
You look like a pirate.

Are you implying that he is a Pastafarian? Could be, he is a "non-atheist" after all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Darn, well would this do it?

Why advertise that you couldn't get into a good university?

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you implying that he is a Pastafarian? Could be, he is a "non-atheist" after all.

I hadn't thought of that.
A keen mind you have there!

 

[HonestJoe]

I would think that is the basis, but what's shocking to me is they think the earth is mediocre. Thus, atheist scientists think there are better earths out there.

You're just making stuff up no. There's no value judgement at all. No planet is better or worse than any other, regardless of whether they have life or not.

Technological breakthrough. 20% of speed of light. That's what Elon Musk is shooting for to get to Mars. Listen to him on how short it will be to travel globally in the near future. The Tesla Model S can out accelerate a Suzuki Hayabusa in the quarter-mile.

That doesn't answer my specific questions. Speculation about what we might achieve is irrelevant, it still doesn't address why you're assuming that if an alien race exists, it must be specifically 4 billion years ahead of us in development and it must have the ability to travel to Earth.

I'm the one with the evidence -- Fermi paradox, SETI, Carl Sagan, Cornell U, my alma mater and Space-X. SETI found one transmission in all the time it has been monitoring, but it wasn't able to be found a second time. Thus, it could have been a mistake.

The Femi paradox isn't evidence any more than the Drake equation is. They're both really just philosophical speculation, with various "best guess" figures plugged in. SETI proves nothing since it's only been looking for one part of one thing for a tiny length of time. I've no idea what you think the existence of Carl Sagan proves; he's one of the many people who has engaged in the philosophical speculation, apparently agreeing with the likelihood of advanced aliens but not that they could or would visit Earth. Cornell is a University and Space-X is a company; why you mentioned them is a complete mystery.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news, more planets discovered....
SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH: 2,000 planets detected outside Milky Way Galaxy

 

[Hockeycowboy]

We've a law in Revoltistan....
"If you claim the probability of something, you must show your calculations under penalty of law."
The penalty for violating this law is to perform Debbie Boone's "You Light Up My Life" in public
once every day for a year. Second offense....the same, but you must wear a frilly pink tutu.

I don't make the law, I just enforce it.

OK....I do make the law, but I really like enforcing it.

A penalty, huh? I dunno....there's some that might think that's an award.

 

[Revoltingest]

A penalty, huh? I dunno....there's some that might think that's an award.

Well, I forgot to mention the fire ants & honey.

 

[james bond]

Quite simply, Fermi's Paradox is based on a whole handful of misnomers.
It's a great thought puzzle, if you accept those misnomers. But it's little more than that.

(What those misnomers; ie, flaws are; have been spelled out many times in the first responses to you.)

It comes from a reasonable understanding of the requirements of an exploratory civilization communicating with another based on the limiting realities of Space and Time.

Misnomer sounds like the wrong word. If so, from who? RF atheists? Tom, Dick or Harry on SA? It just goes to show you need support and you'll claim to get it from anybody off the street. I got Fermi and his back of the envelope calculations. Cornell U and their Drake calculations using the Monte Carlo method. SETI. Carl Sagan. Elon Musk. Which scientist do you have?

Even evolution.berkeley.edu concludes intelligent ET life is rare to find.

Distance is moot. Putting on my creation science cap. What this is about is trying to explain something that didn't happen. Again, I have the evidence that it didn't happen from above. You got smelly gas and RF atheists ha ha. All of this has been pointed out to YOU many times.

Simple Analogy
If I throw a football to a receiver, and I have to lead him by 300,000 years instead of just 30 feet, what do you think the chances are that he'll catch that football? Given how far he'll have to run and how long he'll have to run for, what do you think the chances are that he and his subsequent offspring will even be alive at the point of reception? Given how far away he must be, how would I know he was there, even if he was the greatest receiver ever born?

We are literally throwing a football into the darkness and we will likely never know if, or when, it is ever caught. If one day a football just lands in our laps, it will be the result of billions of years worth of luck.

I had burst out loud laughing on this one. Polymath and I have discussed trying to find the Pillars of Creation if we had a spaceship that can travel at the speed of light. We'll leave you out if and when it does happen.

 

[james bond]

I got 100%.
But this is by refusing to answer the question about the Fermi paradox.
There is no "Fermi paradox".

Then you got 5/6. The correct answer is there are no aliens.

 

[james bond]

You're just making stuff up no. There's no value judgement at all. No planet is better or worse than any other, regardless of whether they have life or not.

That doesn't answer my specific questions. Speculation about what we might achieve is irrelevant, it still doesn't address why you're assuming that if an alien race exists, it must be specifically 4 billion years ahead of us in development and it must have the ability to travel to Earth.

The Femi paradox isn't evidence any more than the Drake equation is. They're both really just philosophical speculation, with various "best guess" figures plugged in. SETI proves nothing since it's only been looking for one part of one thing for a tiny length of time. I've no idea what you think the existence of Carl Sagan proves; he's one of the many people who has engaged in the philosophical speculation, apparently agreeing with the likelihood of advanced aliens but not that they could or would visit Earth. Cornell is a University and Space-X is a company; why you mentioned them is a complete mystery.

I read the earth is mediocre someplace, but lo and behold, look who comes to the rescue. When I said it, I meant the first paragraph. I didn't think atheist wikipedia would back up Fermi and I, too, with the second part.

"The mediocrity principle is the philosophical notion (which may also be expressed as a probabilistic argument ) that "if an item is drawn at random from one of several sets or categories, it's likelier to come from the most numerous category than from any one of the less numerous categories".[1] The principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, Earth's history, the evolution of biological complexity, human evolution, or any one nation. It is a heuristic in the vein of the Copernican principle, and is sometimes used as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior.[2][3]"

"The mediocrity principle suggests, given the existence of life on Earth, that life typically exists on Earth-like planets throughout the universe.[4]"

Mediocrity principle - Wikipedia

Creation science states earth is a "phenomenon" and "is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior" than atheist thinking like the mediocrity principle. We do not agree with the heuristic Copernican principle in this regard and that the universe is bounded and earth is located at its center. Thus, if you do not accept mediocrity, then welcome to the creation club. You can't have it both ways.

As for your other question, I'll post again.

Here's the Mind-Blowing Scientific Paradox That Explains Why Aliens Haven't Found Us Yet

As for the rest, read #1.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then you got 5/6. The correct answer is there are no aliens.

No one knows that.

 

[HonestJoe]

I read the earth is mediocre someplace...

Ah, no you didn't. You read about the mediocrity principle but failed to understand that it isn't the same as saying Earth is mediocre as a value judgement. In this context, it's just an idea that if life exists on one planet, it's more likely to exist on others than not (though I'm not sure it's appropriate to apply in this kind of example since probability is fairly meaningless when you only have a single example).

Creation science states earth is a "phenomenon" and "is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior" than atheist thinking like the mediocrity principle.

So what? If you imagined you're better than everyone else it wouldn't make it true. Anyway, if there are billions of planets and Earth is one of a few with intelligent life, it would still be special in that way. That still doesn't mean Venus, for example, is mediocre because it doesn't.

As for your other question, I'll post again.

Here's the Mind-Blowing Scientific Paradox That Explains Why Aliens Haven't Found Us Yet

OK, so you lifted an image out of context as misunderstood (or misrepresented) what it was meant to show. That article is actually challenging the Fermi Paradox and the image you lifted was just a hypothetical example of a planet which could exist. It isn't saying that if alien life exists on another planet, if must be on that specific timescale. Saying they would have 4 million years development over us is simply wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

Back in the days of Poe, Verne, H.G. Wells, we wondered what sort of folks lived on the moon, because we took it for granted, that we found some sort of life everywhere we looked.

Now we would be fascinated with a fossilized microbe on Mars. The more we learn, the more we appreciate how special Earth is. ET is looking ever more improbable, I think the universe would need to be much much larger than we currently understand, to make another planet like Earth likely, far less with intelligent life on it.

There are billions of earth like planets in the Milky Way alone. The Milky Way is merely one of roughly 100 billion galaxies. Now, when you consider the fact that 99.99999% of these earth like planets are much too far away for us to have communicated or to have recieved communication from any kind of intelligent life on them, it seems that you are mistaken.

It is far, far, far more likely that we are not alone in the universe, according to probability. The mere fact that we haven't found any thus far in no way contradicts this probability.

If there is intelligent life in the universe, it is very, very likely that human being will never make contact with it.

 

[leibowde84]

One of my arguments for evidence of God is aliens or the lack of extraterrestrial life. In other words, the Bible does not state that God created aliens.

Most of us know about Drake's Equation when discussing aliens. Yet, even if we acknowledge that Drake did not make his parameters correct in his equation, there has been enough time for SETI to have made extraterrestrial contact or aliens to have made contact with SETI. If there are intelligent alien civilizations and other planets like earth in the universe, then they would have the power to be able to fly and colonize the universe as we would. They should have been here if they possessed superior technology to ours. This lack of contact by extraterrestrials led Dr. Enrico Fermi to suddenly exclaim, "Where is Everybody?" during a lunch he was having with distinguished scientist colleagues in 1961 after a discussion about ETs.

A Numerical Testbed for Hypotheses of Extraterrestrial Life and Intelligence
[0810.2222] A Numerical Testbed for Hypotheses of Extraterrestrial Life and Intelligence

"Our Galaxy Should Be Teeming With Civilizations, But Where Are They?

Is there obvious proof that we could be alone in the Galaxy? Enrico Fermi thought so -- and he was a pretty smart guy. Might he have been right?

It's been a hundred years since Fermi, an icon of physics, was born (and nearly a half-century since he died). He's best remembered for building a working atomic reactor in a squash court. But in 1950, Fermi made a seemingly innocuous lunchtime remark that has caught and held the attention of every SETI researcher since. (How many luncheon quips have you made with similar consequence?)

The remark came while Fermi was discussing with his mealtime mates the possibility that many sophisticated societies populate the Galaxy. They thought it reasonable to assume that we have a lot of cosmic company. But somewhere between one sentence and the next, Fermi's supple brain realized that if this was true, it implied something profound. If there are really a lot of alien societies, then some of them might have spread out.

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

So what Fermi immediately realized was that the aliens have had more than enough time to pepper the Galaxy with their presence. But looking around, he didn't see any clear indication that they're out and about. This prompted Fermi to ask what was (to him) an obvious question: "where is everybody?"

Fermi Paradox | SETI Institute

Thus, the Fermi Paradox provides more evidence of God.

In addition to this, we have found that fine tuning prohibits life on other planets unless they are finely tuned like earth. Has there been experiments done where they take earth creatures to see if they can survive on the moon? We already know they can survive in outer space, but can they survive and thrive on the moon? If they can't, then it's more evidence for the fine tuning theory.

This entire argument seems to be one huge logical fallacy. This is just an argument from ignorance, using the lack of currently available evidence for the existence of alien life as evidence that alien life does not exist. Considering that we aren't talking about a closed system, and more than 99.99999999999% of the universe has not even been seen by human beings and is too far for us to have received communications, it seems absurd to assume that aliens don't exist ssimply because we haven't found them yet. If there is alien life, most likely humans will never find it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There are billions of earth like planets in the Milky Way alone.

Sure, if you define 'Earth-like' in the loosest possible terms but this term usually comes up as click bait for pop-science articles- and usually refers to something several times Earth size that is somewhat near the habitable zone.... and often in the Gliese case, turns out not to exist at all..

The Milky Way is merely one of roughly 100 billion galaxies. Now, when you consider the fact that 99.99999% of these earth like planets are much too far away for us to have communicated or to have recieved communication from any kind of intelligent life on them, it seems that you are mistaken.

We have an ear on an entire galaxy and hear only the great silence, it is practically guaranteed that there is no other earth like planet in our galaxy, far less one with intelligent life, the entire universe is another question of course, but unless it is far far larger than we suspect, the odds are not good.

One of the most basic fallacies in these Saganesque 'billions and billions of stars and galaxies' arguments, is failing to understand that the vast majority of stars and galaxies are not as suitable for supporting life as ours

 

[leibowde84]

Sure, if you define 'Earth-like' in the loosest possible terms but this term usually comes up as click bait for pop-science articles- and usually refers to something several times Earth size that is somewhat near the habitable zone.... and often in the Gliese case, turns out not to exist at all..

Nice straw man, but that is not how I am defining "earth-like planet". Here is how I am using the term (from Space.com):

"The planets considered Earth-like are rocky on their surface and about 0.5 to 1.5 times the size of Earth. They also land in the "habitable zone" of their orbiting stars, meaning they fall in the sweet spot of orbital distance — not too close and not too far away — and therefore have the potential to be able to support liquid water on their surfaces. The ability to support water is huge, as it means the planet could have the potential to support life.

Kepler showed us these planets are common in the universe. In fact, we now know there are more potentially habitable planets in our galaxy alone than there are people alive on Earth. One out of every two sun-like stars you see in the night sky has a rocky, Earth-like planet in its habitable zone."

We have an ear on an entire galaxy and hear only the great silence, it is practically guaranteed that there is no other earth like planet in our galaxy, far less one with intelligent life, the entire universe is another question of course, but unless it is far far larger than we suspect, the odds are not good.

You are incorrect. There are billions of earth-like planets in our galaxy. We have found many of them. And, there are about 100 billion galaxies, so 100 billion galaxies x average of even 1 billion earth like planets (an extremely modest estimate) = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 earth like planets (between .5 and 1.5 earth's size and in the sweet spot of the habitable zone ... could support liquid water, rocky surface, etc.).

You might not understand the science, but that in no way even points to it being incorrect.

One of the most basic fallacies in these Saganesque 'billions and billions of stars and galaxies' arguments, is failing to understand that the vast majority of stars and galaxies are not as suitable for supporting life as ours

This is just flat out wrong because there is no way for any person on earth to have this information as of yet. We aren't far enough in our understanding of the universe to make such a claim.

 

[james bond]

Ah, no you didn't. You read about the mediocrity principle but failed to understand that it isn't the same as saying Earth is mediocre as a value judgement. In this context, it's just an idea that if life exists on one planet, it's more likely to exist on others than not (though I'm not sure it's appropriate to apply in this kind of example since probability is fairly meaningless when you only have a single example).

So what? If you imagined you're better than everyone else it wouldn't make it true. Anyway, if there are billions of planets and Earth is one of a few with intelligent life, it would still be special in that way. That still doesn't mean Venus, for example, is mediocre because it doesn't.

OK, so you lifted an image out of context as misunderstood (or misrepresented) what it was meant to show. That article is actually challenging the Fermi Paradox and the image you lifted was just a hypothetical example of a planet which could exist. It isn't saying that if alien life exists on another planet, if must be on that specific timescale. Saying they would have 4 million years development over us is simply wrong.

Joe, you're not honest. What I said was is the earth is superior in every way including habitability, and thus, I was shocked by reading that it was mediocre in terms of habitability to atheist scientists.

It doesn't sound like you understand habitability, either, so I won't waste anymore of your time.

 

[james bond]

This entire argument seems to be one huge logical fallacy. This is just an argument from ignorance, using the lack of currently available evidence for the existence of alien life as evidence that alien life does not exist. Considering that we aren't talking about a closed system, and more than 99.99999999999% of the universe has not even been seen by human beings and is too far for us to have received communications, it seems absurd to assume that aliens don't exist ssimply because we haven't found them yet. If there is alien life, most likely humans will never find it.

Humans won't find aliens because God didn't create aliens. How can one find something that doesn't exist? Who believes in the flying spaghetti monster? Atheist scientists!!! Ha ha.

It's ironic that I'm quoting atheist science. Atheist scientists still think there are aliens in many places in the universe. They have no evidence, but they think due to planet habitability based on evolution that they exist. They used to think they existed due to the vastness of space. Even the tests that SETI has conducted backs no aliens. Moreover, it seems evolution.berkeley.com is admitting that alien life is rare now instead of saying they're in many places. Finally, you're admitting that humans will never find aliens. Why? The latest is there is a great filter. Oh brother. The atheist scientists won't give up.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Misnomer sounds like the wrong word. If so, from who?

From who? The flaws come from being disconnected with reality, not from a particular person...

Fermi assumed too many things from too many fields of study to make any kind of real impact on Astrobiological research. To claim otherwise is to misconstrue his position and the current comprehensive study of Cosmology. To then take his little idea and use it as a foundation for your "God created the Universe" argument is dubious at best.

Here are 50 alternative solutions to this pet thought puzzle:
https://www.astro.ufl.edu/~lebo/AST2037/Fermi's Paradox - Stephen Webb.docx
Again, each one is just about as likely as any other - those which have more substantiating material behind them are more probable than those which are total shots in the dark - but even they're still possible until proven otherwise. You know...Science?

RF atheists? Tom, Dick or Harry on SA? It just goes to show you need support and you'll claim to get it from anybody off the street. I got Fermi and his back of the envelope calculations. Cornell U and their Drake calculations using the Monte Carlo method. SETI. Carl Sagan. Elon Musk. Which scientist do you have?

You keep coming back to this, as if it matters somehow...

Please, for the love of Fermi, read this article.
Appeal to Authority

Look, it doesn't matter who you name drop, or how brilliant they are in some facets of their life. Bad arguments are bad arguments, regardless of who makes them. The only thing that matters is what substantiates any given argument. And while you've mentioned these things numerous times, you've not shown how any of it relates to, or supports, your position.

• Elon Musk saying that he wants to travel at 20% the speed of light one day doesn't support anything. It's not currently possible, it may never be so, and no one has any idea as to how to do it if it is. So it doesn't support you, or anything else for that matter. It's just Elon Musk talking.
• Carl Sagan not being a staunch Atheist doesn't mean that you're faith is suddenly vindicated, or that he believed in anything more than the possibility of something beyond his comprehension. It doesn't support anything other than Carl Sagan's personal philosophy.
• The Drake equation is just as problematic as Fermi's Paradox - without any substantiating source material for their base assumptions, they're ultimately worthless.
• SETI is incredibly limited in scope, on a planet that is limited in vision, using tools that are limited in capacity...

Is that really what you consider to be a sound supporting defense for your position?

Even evolution.berkeley.edu concludes intelligent ET life is rare to find.

That's a Captain Obvious statement from Berkeley... I've also said as much myself.
So what?

Distance is moot. Putting on my creation science cap. What this is about is trying to explain something that didn't happen. Again, I have the evidence that it didn't happen from above. You got smelly gas and RF atheists ha ha. All of this has been pointed out to YOU many times.

You're applying very slippery logic.
Using your same argument, if a lack of direct evidence for Alien Civilizations means they don't exist, then what can be said about the existence of your creator God?

If you feel differently about substantiating evidence for the claim that you just made, then please cite it in response.

DISTANCE
Anyone who says that distance (Space Time) is not a factor in all of these conversations (equations, paradoxes, arguments, etc...) is just woefully mistaken.

Introduction to general relativity - Wikipedia

Remember how I said that we are limited in our ability to even comprehend? Vision is a huge part of that problem. We can't even see most of the Universe. It's physically blocked by the Milky Way.

See those black areas with nothing in them? We cannot see in that direction. If you cannot "see" something, then you cannot study it.

We also can't see what hasn't yet come visible to us...
Light cone - Wikipedia

You might forget this in all the righteous indignation, but radio waves and photons both travel at the speed of light. What's true of one is true of the other in these examples.

Lookback Time

On The Idea of Linear Evolution
From Cornell...
http://pages.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/websterlab/10 Misunderstandings - SHORT.pdf
(Please read articles 1, 6,7,9, & 10 at the very least)

On this planet, what's the longest tenured, and thus evolutionarily successful, species?
How advanced are they, in comparison to Homo Sapiens?
What does their Space program look like?

I had burst out loud laughing on this one. Polymath and I have discussed trying to find the Pillars of Creation if we had a spaceship that can travel at the speed of light. We'll leave you out if and when it does happen.

At this point, I'm not even sure you know why you're laughing.

The analogy is very simple.

• If I throw a football before you're born, you'll never know that I threw a football.
• If I throw a football after you're born, but before you know what a football is, you'll never know that I threw a football.
• If I throw a football after you're born, but your back is turned, you'll never know that I threw a football.
• If I throw a football and you're looking right at me, but for whatever reason you can't see the football, you'll never know that I threw a football.
• If I throw a football and you know what a football is, and you're even looking for a football, but you're running in a specific direction in the dark, you'll never know that I thew a football.

I could have thrown millions of footballs, and you'd wouldn't be privy to a single one of them...