Where Is Everybody? Where Are The Aliens?

[Guy Threepwood]

As oth
ers have stated (and that was the reason I didn't include it in my bullet points) the incredibly vast reaches of space mean that, pointing a probe in a particular direction would have it detectable only to a completely insignificant portion of the universe. To the point that, yes, we can see better into the depths of space with our own probe, but the chances that it will come within detectable range of an alien civilization advanced enough to do such detecting is horribly, horribly minuscule. And so it would be the same with any other alien civilization having sent out similar probing devices. They would have basically had to have accidentally pointed it in EXACTLY the right direction, accounting for the movement of the Earth itself within the solar-system, gravitational effects from large-scale bodies, movement of solar-system-scale and even galactic-scale bodies, etc. There could have been 1,000 such alien probes in the past - having moved past the earth within a million mile radius and we would have had no idea. And even passing within THAT vast a range would be INCREDIBLY amazing luck on the part of the alien civilization who launched them considering the launch trajectory would have been set from however many millions of lightyears away.

Well sure detecting alien probes is probably a long shot, but the point was about colonization of the galaxy, any single civilization with tech little better than our own, could have colonized the entire galaxy many times over by now, but (ancient alien theories not withstanding) this apparently never happened, why not?

On detection, we have an ear to an entire galaxy and there is nothing but the 'great silence'

I think many people allow their underestimation of just how unbelievably huge the universe is to cloud their judgment in such matters.

it's fairly big, but mostly empty space, the size alone doesn't guarantee another Earth existing enywhere

 

[Nakosis]

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.

I generally avoid trying to justifying a belief on a lack of evidence.

Not saying you can't have such a belief, just you should be expecting anyone else to concern themselves with it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well sure detecting alien probes is probably a long shot, but the point was about colonization of the galaxy, any single civilization with tech little better than our own, could have colonized the entire galaxy many times over by now, but (ancient alien theories not withstanding) this apparently never happened, why not?

There are so many assumptions made with this claim of "many times over." I do not understand how you are justifying this. Again, even WITH the right tech and resources, who says anyone in this alien civilization is willing to fund the operation? Who says they are able to work together to get the job done? Who says it is in their best interest to leave their planet for destinations millions of lightyears away in the first place?

On detection, we have an ear to an entire galaxy and there is nothing but the 'great silence'

Again, who says any single group of life-forms in the universe has managed to even enter space like we have? We know nothing and yet talk like we know everything. And that's what is so crazy here... you claim so much knowledge about a God existing, and then when it comes to ideas that are traditionally considered argumentation-points contrary to God's existence (for example, that alien life exists) you still claim to know so much! Like your KNOWING for certain that there has been enough time past for other life to have colonized much of the galaxy. Can these advanced alien civilizations "terraform" planets, do you think? Maybe move them into the "Goldilocks zone?" Can they do those things in order to produce planets it would even make sense to colonize long-term? Well? You're the one who apparently knows so much about what aliens should be capable of... what do you say? Why move into every corner of a galaxy when to do so means expenditure of massive resources just to keep life alive on planets that mostly aren't going to be optimal for your species' survival?

it's fairly big, but mostly empty space, the size alone doesn't guarantee another Earth existing enywhere

Agreed. Which is another reason why none of your points previous to this one make any sense.

 

[columbus]

There's enough evidence from the ancient lake beds and hot springs on Mars that I don't have a problem saying that former life has already been discovered.

Where's the evidence for Life?
Evidence for liquid water isn't the same thing.
Tom

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The other point to make here is that the existence or non-existence of aliens actually does nothing to the proposition of an all-powerful creator of the universe.

If alien-life does exist, it does not definitively prove there is no all-powerful creator being - only that the writing you may have on said being is possibly inaccurate.

If alien-life does not exist, it doesn't, in any way, prove God's existence. I am not even sure how someone infers this. It makes absolutely no sense. "There is no life outside of Earth, therefore, even given no other worthwhile evidence, God exists." Can anyone tell me what sense that makes?

 

[Polymath257]

And most utterly fail to understand it. See, for example, Wiki: Rare Earth Hypothesis.

And that hypothesis is based on very poor understanding of astronomy.

For example, the claim that outer stars in a galaxy are excluded because of metalicity concerns is false: it is actually the inner stars that are excluded (they tend to be low in higher elements). We can also exclude, for similar reasons, elliptical galaxies.

Anyway, we now know that planets are MUCH more common than we expected even a few years ago. The whole 'Rare Earth' claim seems to be wrong.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There are so many assumptions made with this claim of "many times over." I do not understand how you are justifying this.

That was Fermi's assessment and I agree, because the galaxy is only about 100KLY across, which is pretty managable considering it is BILLIONS of years old- I think he came up with a figure of about 5 million years for a single colonization- obviously hard to nail down but the point being; there has been plenty time to cover the distances

Again, who says any single group of life-forms in the universe has managed to even enter space like we have? We know nothing and yet talk like we know everything. And that's what is so crazy here... you claim so much knowledge about a God existing, and then when it comes to ideas that are traditionally considered argumentation-points contrary to God's existence (for example, that alien life exists) you still claim to know so much! Like your KNOWING for certain that there has been enough time past for other life to have colonized much of the galaxy. Can these advanced alien civilizations "terraform" planets, do you think? Maybe move them into the "Goldilocks zone?" Can they do those things in order to produce planets it would even make sense to colonize long-term? Well? You're the one who apparently knows so much about what aliens should be capable of... what do you say? Why move into every corner of a galaxy when to do so means expenditure of massive resources just to keep life alive on planets that mostly aren't going to be optimal for your species' survival?

I'm the one accepting the direct evidence here, the math and great silence- as far as we can tell we are alone

You are the one claiming something unknown exists despite this.. which is fine, nothing wrong with speculating! But I think the math is far more definitive than the lack of direct evidence, that merely corroborates it

I think you make good points though; terraforming, moving or even manufacturing planets nearby could be an option. On the other hand; another technology we are quickly learning about is cryogenesis- frogs can do it, so we have to at least accept the possibility that ET, given enough time, would manage to figure this out also- In which case a trip of a few KLY across friction-free space, with no light/heat/food/ etc required.. may not be a massive expenditure of resources at all, it certainly could be a far more efficient than moving/ terraforming/ building entire new planets don't you think?

 

[YmirGF]

And that hypothesis is based on very poor understanding of astronomy.

For example, the claim that outer stars in a galaxy are excluded because of metalicity concerns is false: it is actually the inner stars that are excluded (they tend to be low in higher elements). We can also exclude, for similar reasons, elliptical galaxies.

Anyway, we now know that planets are MUCH more common than we expected even a few years ago. The whole 'Rare Earth' claim seems to be wrong.

Like this, a lot. ^^

My own take on "Where is ET?" is found in the appreciation of the enormous distances involved between given points in the known universe. For example, I don't understand why ET would travel billions and billions of miles to come here to do loop de loo's over a city after dinner. Or to rattle innocent drivers heading home on a back country road... etc...

 

[columbus]

That was Fermi's assessment and I agree,

Do you accept Fermi's assessment of everything, or just when you interpret it to agree with you?

One thing that I can't help but notice. Religionists tend to be reliant on human authorities. They think that because a famous person said something, we should all accept it.

Non-theist people don't do things that way. I am speaking from experience here. Richard Dawkins could say something he thinks is important, and I might just laugh and point. Because I think he's wrong.
That's the difference between religionists and non-theists. We non-theists want to see solid evidence. We don't take human authorities very seriously.
Tom

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The other point to make here is that the existence or non-existence of aliens actually does nothing to the proposition of an all-powerful creator of the universe.

If alien-life does exist, it does not definitively prove there is no all-powerful creator being - only that the writing you may have on said being is possibly inaccurate.

If alien-life does not exist, it doesn't, in any way, prove God's existence. I am not even sure how someone infers this. It makes absolutely no sense. "There is no life outside of Earth, therefore, even given no other worthwhile evidence, God exists." Can anyone tell me what sense that makes?

It's more like: There is no life outside of Earth, therefore, along with the rest of the evidence, we are probably put here for a specific purpose

Funnily enough it is one hypothetical I have found would make many atheists stop to think- if we could somehow establish that we were alone- literally the only means by which the universe can be aware of it's own existence- could you write this off as yet one more staggering coincidence? that does begin to strain the credulity of atheism for many

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Do you accept Fermi's assessment of everything, or just when you interpret it to agree with you?

As I said, I agree with him on this point, I don't just accept his authority on it- I think we agree that the whole point of science is NOT taking anyone's word for it?

One thing that I can't help but notice. Religionists tend to be reliant on human authorities. They think that because a famous person said something, we should all accept it.

Non-theist people don't do things that way. I am speaking from experience here. Richard Dawkins could say something he thinks is important, and I might just laugh and point. Because I think he's wrong.
That's the difference between religionists and non-theists. We non-theists want to see solid evidence. We don't take human authorities very seriously.
Tom

That's the difference between religionists and non-theists. We non-theists want to see solid evidence. We don't take human authorities very seriously.

With your permission, I will quote you on this next time someone talks about the % of scientists that believe in evolution!

 

[sun rise]

It seems like the OP was not based on reading the article, notably the conclusions notably that there is insufficient data for a reliable answer. Trying to use very preliminary data to reach a conclusion is akin to building a castle on the sand where a wave could wash it away in an instant.

1. ... output data will only be as useful as the input data will allow (the perennial “garbage in, garbage out” problem). Current data on exoplanets, while improving daily, is still insufficient to explore the parameter space in mass and orbital radii, and as such all results here are very much incomplete...

 

[columbus]

ith your permission, I will quote you next time someone talks about the % of scientists that believe in evolution!

Feel free.
I want to know what is true.

If you have evidence on the subject, put it out there. I have noticed that you keep saying that you do, without actually letting us non-theists know what it is.

C'mon. Give me something to believe in besides you. You are not very impressive.
Tom

 

[David T]

No it doesn't, and the Fermi Paradox is not a true paradox. It's a presupposition.

How about i give you one: Perhaps we have no evidence of any alien life because of relativity and the massive distances involved.

Which leads to my favourite explanation:

Human beings have not existed long enough.

Tard sience. Indeed as soon as we have our tardis then reality will be real finally!!! I love Dr who.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Feel free.
I want to know what is true.

If you have evidence on the subject, put it out there. I have noticed that you keep saying that you do, without actually letting us non-theists know what it is.

C'mon. Give me something to believe in besides you. You are not very impressive.
Tom

Ha that is true, don't take my word for anything either. I completely changed my mind on all this stuff once already- so all I can prove is that my opinion is totally unreliable

But what subject are you referring to now, ET or Evolution? Think I'd need to meet you on a different thread for that...

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe civilizations destroy themselves before they get to the stars.

It seems likely that one civilization will be the first to become technologically
advanced, enabling detection of other life. We could be that civilization.
It could also be that it takes a very long time for 2 civilizations to be advanced
enuf & close enuf for one to detect the other.

 

[`mud]

A lot of posts here believe that there is a `god` that created us,
and our Earth,
and of all of the other living entities that occupy our Cosmos.
If this thinking is correct, and there are other `species` out there,
what is the speed of `God's` throne,
that He rides to do all of these endeavers.
Also.....does He take heaven with Him ?
Ahhhhhhh.....the speed and light and `God` !

 

[Theweirdtophat]

One would argue God is an alien. Isn't he technically one anyway if he did not originate on Earth? Assuming God is a he and I think God is more of an it.

I never understood why the idea of aliens during biblical times was absurd. Only because they never explicitly say they are aliens. It would kind of explain how people who were in caves all of a sudden learned math, science and civilization. No one does every explain that, how people in prehistoric times came and developed writing and created cities in Sumer. There's numerous stories of gods teaching humans all of this stuff, they are described as people coming from the starts, some gods, clearly do not look human at all, ect. And before people say that people developed all of this stuff on their own, why were there still tribes in Africa that were cut off from all civilization were amazed when they saw airplanes. Humans didn't all develop at the same rate. They were there for eons but didn't learn all of this stuff. Because they did not have help. It's like expecting a 10 year old to just all of a sudden know how to do calculus and how to build stuff with nor formal teaching.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Where's the evidence for Life?
Evidence for liquid water isn't the same thing.
Tom

Why would you assume I was talking about water? There's water all over the Solar System, in great quantities... No one should assume that water = life...

On that point, and because the time lapse between actual discovery and public release for dissemination is so similar... Water is what people have been clamoring about lately but that's only because the flow of information to the public is mind-numbingly slow and it's just now coming out officially. The studies for water on Mars were beyond conclusive well before the announcements were ever considered being made. It's been a known thing for a very long time...

Those little time lapse videos from last year showing brine seeping out of crater walls were first discovered in the early 2000s, for example. For us nerds who pour over data sets when they come out, official announcements are like little jokes.

The data evidencing past life on Mars is similarly obvious.

There's lots - so these are just a couple of snapshots.

Methane Spikes on Mars:

If you know anything at all about Methane's processes and cycles on Earth, then these maps are very telling. Their geographic locations also correspond to either ancient coastlines or warm springs, which is where simple biotic processes would have originated on the surface of early Mars. And they only seem to peak during the warmer months, which could mean a couple of different things...

These spikes arise, and then drift off in the breeze before dissipating into the greater atmosphere and, we think, drift off into space as part of Mars' gaseous tail - which means that we probably aren't looking at active life, but frozen releases that are given a chance to escape during annual thaws. If they come from active processes, then it's all subsurface and it's all very fragile.

Feel free to compare locations:

(I'll bet you can, with little knowledge, predict where other such spikes have occurred.)
*This is a map showing overall elevations. "Study Area" on this map is not the Study Area for my above snippet. Use the map key to find that area.

Also, the spectral map from ancient warm springs on Mars which contain "geological" features similar to those found in bacterial mats on Earth, are nearly identical in every way. The differences likely come from the resources used in construction - which would be expected given the different environments, atmospheres, base compounds, and origins of Mars available to the hypothetical bacterial species which would have created them.

Silica deposits on Mars with features resembling hot spring biosignatures at El Tatio in Chile
"Home Plate Outcrop" is the one that has been researched most to this point.

Everthing Mars once had is being blown away by the Solar wind, including the magnetosphere. Her geological processes have pretty much stopped, her core has stopped spinning, and she can't protect herself anymore... Which is why conditions there are so harsh and prohibitive to life now.
NASA’s MAVEN Mission Finds Mars Has a Twisted Tail

I could go on and on...

There are other areas of methane bursts which follow the same pattern in location, making them predictable. And predictability is a staple of Scientific discovery, letting you know you're on the right path. There are similar bordering outcrops which share chemical and spectral maps with biological formations on Earth. There are plenty of other data sets which can serve as predictors for these two type of phenomenon in particular, and that's in addition to the trace elements that are constantly discovered in the laser and drill samples on Curiosity.

Now, I'm not saying that life is currently vibrant and active on Mars. I won't even say that it currently exists, as the barriers to sustained life at this point are bit too harsh. But there's enough circumstantial evidence for me to say without hesitation that it was once there, no matter how simple it may have been. We know from our own history that active geology, running water, and diverse chemistry, protected by a magnetic field, can lead to life. We also know that Mars, at least at one time, had all of these ingredients. We also know that many features on Mars mimic those of Earth to an astounding degree, from geology to chemical formations and processes. As Mars' magnetic field, geological processes, and available chemical combinations were slowly stripped away, the ability for life to continue to develop did as well - which would have led to a situation that we see on Mars today, little more than trace amounts of a once more-vibrant planet.

Admittedly, and understandably, there's not enough conclusive data yet to make an official announcement, and the process of Science itself is such that the wider community won't make claims unless they're wholly substantiated. But the fact that these studies exist, are ongoing, and continue finding markers that are expected and predictable tell me as much as I need to know to this point; Biological processes once took place on Mars.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And that hypothesis is based on very poor understanding of astronomy.

Based? Perhaps in the case of some, but I sincerely doubt that this is the case for people like *Ernst Mayr, whose focus was on the fraction of life-baring planets that develops intelligent life.

In any event, I would have thought that the casual ad hominem was beneath you.