Fermi was Jedi. Sagan was Sith.

[EvilBob]

I never tried marijauna or LSD but I was suprised to read that Sagan tried pot. We could spin off on that tangent of subject matter but it seems to place him into a catagory of trying to be hip and popular rather than being logical and scientific as in treasuring his own brain and being accurate. As for thinking it is no big deal -- it can't hurt not to do street drugs.

Why the attempt at character assassination? Does it matter if he smoked pot or not, or his motivation for doing so if he did? This is getting really old, and I'm finding the whole premise of the discussion offensive.

[William_Thompson]

Oh, PLEASE! Not THIS argument again! Not only that, you have to start off the whole entire thread by suggesting that one proponent is "evil", the other is "good", for the sole purpose of trying to draw people to your side? I'm sorry, but that's what it seems like to me.



Which *STILL MAKES ASSUMPTIONS*. It makes assumptions that worlds have always been habitable,

Are you arguing for or against my comments here?

it makes assumptions at the time period life would've had to start (as soon as the Universe was born),

You are assuming that I have not done my homework. We are late-comers in our Galaxy. The other star systems are much older and our sun was formed from an old star system that died and spread dibris into space.

it makes assumptions that these lifeforms would have had our rate of inclination towards technology,

If a tree falls in the woods and noone was around, it makes no sound according to the definition of the word, "sound".

It seems you are making statements that support my oppinion.

and it makes assumptions on the rate of nonsapient to sapient lifeforms. Plus, it makes assumptions that sapient lifeforms will always want to leave their world, never have conflicts, don't put themselves back to the "dark ages", ad naeuseum!

It sounds more like you agree with me rather than disagree with me.

In fact, you are adding to the long list I already have in mind why we are rare in the GALAXY (not Universe).

No, I cling to what makes the most sense to me. It make sense to me that we only have a limited scope in this Universe.

So?

I am sure both Fermi, and even Frank Drake keep the Universe out of the debate and only think of the Galaxy.

There is not much point in including the entire Universe.

It also makes sense to me that making the claim that life automatically exists out there, or life doesn't exist at all in the universe, is very similar to religious doctrine. It's a matter of pure belief, and the more you throw science into it, the more it becomes obvious that you're just trying to justify the beliefs you started out with.

I could not disagree with you more on that final point. In fact I WANT very much to believe we are not alone. In fact, that is where I started. I was a believer.

[William_Thompson]

Why the attempt at character assassination? Does it matter if he smoked pot or not, or his motivation for doing so if he did? This is getting really old, and I'm finding the whole premise of the discussion offensive.

I see no point in focusing on it.

[SolusLupus]

I see no point in focusing on it.

Then why did you and why are you? You're focusing on it enough to allude that Sagan is "evil" and Fermi is "good".

I never tried marijauna or LSD but I was suprised to read that Sagan tried pot. We could spin off on that tangent of subject matter but it seems to place him into a catagory of trying to be hip and popular rather than being logical and scientific as in treasuring his own brain and being accurate. As for thinking it is no big deal -- it can't hurt not to do street drugs.

You seem to be drawing a huge conclusion about Sagan's personality by the simple claim that he smoked marijuana. I wish everyone could be judged so easily; would make life easier.

[SolusLupus]

Are you arguing for or against my comments here?

Against.

If a tree falls in the woods and noone was around, it makes no sound according to the definition of the word, "sound".

It seems you are making statements that support my oppinion.

I'm not sure what you mean here. How does this pertain to races being as capable of developing technology as we are?

It sounds more like you agree with me rather than disagree with me.

That's because I can see both sides of the argument, and I don't have to suggest that a proponent of the opposite viewpoint as "evil". But people such as Ilya and you have claimed that people like me only believe that there are aliens out there just because we want to believe in it, no other reason. That's annoying and insulting.

In fact, you are adding to the long list I already have in mind why we are rare in the GALAXY (not Universe).

I don't see why. Making assumptions to come to a conclusion is never good in my book; it's going into speculation and then Conclusion.

So?

I am sure both Fermi, and even Frank Drake keep the Universe out of the debate and only think of the Galaxy.

Okay.

I could not disagree with you more on that final point. In fact I WANT very much to believe we are not alone. In fact, that is where I started. I was a believer.

Okay, this is probably true, and actually was a hypocritical claim of mine. I take back what I said.

However, I'm not a "believer", I'm just a skeptic. I'm skeptical about the claim that we have to be rare because of preconceived notions of what "life" is.

[Hugh Jass]

:SNIP: To visualize how things really are requires stepping outside the picture on a huge scale. It requires knowing that there is no such thing as "here" and "there" we are all here. Here is all there is. We are all like a bride waiting at the alter for a groom to show up and we have been waiting for billions of years for what should have not taken so long. The groom is not out there.

I probably condensed that too much. Fermi knew that there was no such thing as "out there". We are part of the galaxy. :SNIP:

So if there is no "here" or "there" how do you then define "here" as
a)all there is
b)just the earth

If we are part of the galaxy, then why do we constrain intelligent life to such a miniscule speck?

:SNIP:I think life is very very antinature.

yet we exist, if we exist why is it so unlikely that it can't happen again? I think it would be much more likely that other life didn't exist if there was no life anywhere, but I think we prove that life does exist, so it is possible. That we have not seen evidence of reproducibility is just a result of not having been able to see the other experiments.

As is said Ad nauseam in ATM/CT threads
Lack of evidence is NOT evidence of lack.

On the other points, I fail to see why the attempted character assassination of Carl Sagan has any relevance to your standpoint, or your argument and why it has anyplace on this forum.

[N C More]

As is said Ad nauseam in ATM/CT threads
Lack of evidence is NOT evidence of lack.

Considering the vast size of the galaxy alone, I'm not really very suprized by a lack of evidence. To just up and say, "there's nobody out there", when dealing with the incredible number of available stars "out there", seems to me to be jumping to conclusions in a very big way.

According to this estimate there's apx 20 billion star system in the so-called "golden zone" alone! To conclude that we're "all there is" at this point in time is premature.

[SolusLupus]

We're also on the periphery; we aren't in the middle, we aren't in the most interesting of the spots. We're on the edge of the galaxy.

[William_Thompson]

Here is part of my collection of some evidence supporting why we Are, for all practical purposes, alone in the universe:

1. It doesn't matter that there are billions of galaxies with billions of stars. The distance between galaxies is so staggering that any civilization in another galaxy would have changed or died during the time it would take to communicate to another galaxy.

2. Things are not as they appear. And reality is not as hopeful as scientists who are looking for ET suggest. Technology has given us the ability to look for extra-solar planets. But scientists fail to mention that they are focusing their attention on star systems that are not binary. You see, even though there are billions of stars in our galaxy, you can take more than 2/3rds of those stars and discard them in a search for ET because they are binary stars. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980402c.html

3. Even if Life is abundant in the Galaxy, plant and animal life is rare. Take our planet as an example:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/alllife/threedomains.html
Plus, it took a long long long long long time for plant and animal life to come about:
http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/astrobiolog.../timeline2.htm. Also notice that plant and animal life occurred after a series of unlikely events. And, on top of all this, human life and other intelligent life is even rarer. Even if you take Earth as a model of a planet that exists throughout the galaxy we are still most likely alone.

4. Liquid water is rarer than you might think. Scientists that are hopeful that we are not alone in the galaxy often mention that all is needed is the existence of liquid water. It is a very common mistake that temperature is the only factor in keeping water in a liquid state. This is not true. Liquid water is rare because it requires a combination of temperature and pressure. Liquid water "boils" at room temperature in a vacuum.

By the way, it is the lack of atmospheric pressure on Mars (1% of that on Earth) that is the reason why liquid water does not exist there today.

5. Geologists think that or sort of Earth/Moon arrangement is important for the existence of the kind of life we have:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x1.html. So the question arises, how probable is it that a small, rocky planet could have a planetoid moon of our size. According to the BBC special "The Planets" it is very improbable. Part of the mission of the Apollo project was to determine the origin of our moon. Because of the age and composition of the rocks on the moon it was eventually determined that the moon was born from a collision of another smaller planet into the Earth. Somehow the Earth survived and the upheaval of debris formed the moon. It is not very likely that our Earth/Moon arrangement is common.

6. The fact that we are alone is proved by Enrico Fermi's paradox: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec28.html. Scientists whose employment at NASA and other similar organizations depend on their ability to find reasons to disagree with Fermi cannot say that somehow they know better: http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureate...fermi-bio.html.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc92.htm

[SolusLupus]

I thought you said that we would only look at the galaxy, not the universe. Now you're confusing me.

[William_Thompson]

I think Segan was something of a con artist in the fact that he told people what they wanted to hear in order to sell books.

I think this was harmful. But since we are living in the culture that he more or less created, it is difficult for us to take a look at this damage from the outside looking in.

If Sagan was a nutritionist rather than a scientist, I imagine he would promote eating high fat food because there were little pixies living in the sky who are going to come down one day and magically make us all healthy.

It is the same logic as pouring our energies into looking for ETI rather than focusing on becoming an advanced culture ourselves.

[William_Thompson]

I thought you said that we would only look at the galaxy, not the universe. Now you're confusing me.

Don't be confused.

Number one in the list explains why we are not looking at the whole universe.

[SolusLupus]

Here is part of my collection of some evidence supporting why we Are, for all practical purposes, alone in the universe:

But you say we're only focusing on galaxies, yet you say "ALONE IN THE UNIVERSE". Do I really need to draw a map for you, Thompson?

1. It doesn't matter that there are billions of galaxies with billions of stars. The distance between galaxies is so staggering that any civilization in another galaxy would have changed or died during the time it would take to communicate to another galaxy.

First of all: This is an assumption based on factors you (and we, as a human race) do not fully understand.

Second of all: Assuming it is true, this is a point towards those that believe in ET.

2. Things are not as they appear. And reality is not as hopeful as scientists who are looking for ET suggest. Technology has given us the ability to look for extra-solar planets. But scientists fail to mention that they are focusing their attention on star systems that are not binary. You see, even though there are billions of stars in our galaxy, you can take more than 2/3rds of those stars and discard them in a search for ET because they are binary stars. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980402c.html

Our views are still limited. We do not see many planets or planetoids; our vision is more or less limited (the brighter and larger it is, the more likely we can see it, basically).

Also, let me ask you something: How exactly can life not exist in a binary star system? I'm curious.

3. Even if Life is abundant in the Galaxy, plant and animal life is rare. Take our planet as an example:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/alllife/threedomains.html
Plus, it took a long long long long long time for plant and animal life to come about:

Which is a point that is lobbed at the people that claim that "life has had 4.55 billion years to evolve!", which isn't true. A you said yourself, it took a long time for plant and animal life to come about, which means that "time" was not as long for life to come about as you all claim.

Also notice that plant and animal life occurred after a series of unlikely events.

Which is why I never claimed that all the solar systems are filled with sapient life; however, algae, bacterium, and nonsapient life (animal intelligence) is still possible.

And, on top of all this, human life and other intelligent life is even rarer.

You could still have several worlds filled with animal-intelligence life.

Even if you take Earth as a model of a planet that exists throughout the galaxy we are still most likely alone.

Right.. according to all the assumptions that are being made.

4. Liquid water is rarer than you might think. Scientists that are hopeful that we are not alone in the galaxy often mention that all is needed is the existence of liquid water. It is a very common mistake that temperature is the only factor in keeping water in a liquid state. This is not true. Liquid water is rare because it requires a combination of temperature and pressure. Liquid water "boils" at room temperature in a vacuum.

Right, it "boils", radiates all its heat, and becomes nebulas, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), or become ice. It's not hard for comets to hit worlds, y'know.

By the way, it is the lack of atmospheric pressure on Mars (1% of that on Earth) that is the reason why liquid water does not exist there today.

Cool.


I can't keep this up. My temper's flaring.

[SolusLupus]

I think Segan was something of a con artist in the fact that he told people what they wanted to hear in order to sell books.

That's nice. It's still "Sagan", btw.

I think this was harmful. But since we are living in the culture that he more or less created, it is difficult for us to take a look at this damage from the outside looking in.

So Sagan is entirely responsible for thinking that life is out there; no such thing as free-thinkers, eh?

If Sagan was a nutritionist rather than a scientist, I imagine he would promote eating high fat food because there were little pixies living in the sky who are going to come down one day and magically make us all healthy.

Why's that?

It is the same logic as pouring our energies into looking for ETI rather than focusing on becoming an advanced culture ourselves.

No, it is not.

[William_Thompson]

I have to add a couple of points:

1. Self evident observations require no proof since they are their own proofs. The aliens are not here when they should have been here for a long time. "Well" you might say, "prove it!" Huh?
2. There is no logical way to completely prove a negative. Only positives can be proved. For instance, there is no way to "prove" that Santa Claus does not exist. I challenge anyone to try. Sure you could fly over the north pole and show me but I could say, "Santa knew you were coming so he is hiding". The same holds true for the comments that attempts to explain away Fermi's Paradox. For example "we are on the outer edge of the galaxy so they don't know we are here" or "just because a grey is not sitting down next to us does not mean they are not out there". These coments have the same sort of ring as "Santa is hiding his north pole hide-out"

[William_Thompson]

But you say we're only focusing on galaxies, yet you say "ALONE IN THE UNIVERSE". Do I really need to draw a map for you, Thompson?

I am not saying we are alone in the Universe.

But if we are alone in the Galaxy for all practical purposes, for all practical purposes were are alone in the Universe.

If a tree falls in the woods and noone is around to hear it, for all practical purposes, it made no sound.

I am not saying we are alone in the Universe. We are alone for all practical purposes.

[William_Thompson]

I can't keep this up. My temper's flaring.

That speaks for itself.

[SolusLupus]

[QUOTE=William_Thompson]

[list=1][*]Self evident observations require no proof since they are thier own proofs. The aliens are not here when they should have been here for a long time. "Well" you might say, "prove it!" Huh?

It doesn't seem so self-evident to me, and to many people that do not put total faith into Fermi's Paradox. You have not proved that there are no alien civilizations out there. You have put forth evidence to show that if there are alien civilizations, they have not been here on Earth, and they are not visible, and we have not intercepted radio communication; that is all you have evidence for.

[*]There is no logical way to completely prove a negative. Only positives can be proved.

Which is why it irritates me when people claim that there CANNOT be alien civilizations out there; or that they assume that "alien civilizations" only fall into their personal narrow definition.

For instance, there is no way to "prove" that Santa Claus does not exist. I challenge anyone to try. Sure you could fly over the north pole and show me but I could say, "Santa knew you were coming so he is hiding".

But it is possible to prove a positive. If we discovered alien races, then it would disprove Fermi's Paradox. As such, I'm holding out judgement until that day, and I do not look down upon SETI. I do agree that we should look into advancing our civilization and get to colonizing other worlds, but I would NOT rule out the idea of other alien civilizations.

[SolusLupus]

I am not saying we are alone in the Universe.

But if we are alone in the Galaxy for all practical purposes, for all practical purposes were are alone in the Universe.

How so? Eventually we may intercept radio signals and initiate contact with alien beings. We've only been shining our flashlight for a few decades.

If a tree falls in the woods and noone is around to hear it, for all practical purposes, it made no sound.

It sent sound waves. For all practical purposes, it DID fall, and it DID affect its immediate realm. Also, people coming by later can find a fallen tree. For all practical purposes, the tree does effect, and it could come into the lives of at least one person who finds it.

I am not saying we are alone in the Universe. We are alone for all practical purposes.

And maybe we are. But I'm going to avoid assumptions, mm'kay?

[William_Thompson]

Lonewulf, you have used the scientific "F" word.

[William_Thompson]

Because of disinterested curiosity.

That sounds to me like an oxymoron, like, "Jumbo Shrimp".

[agingjb]

I wish I could claim to have coined the phrase "disinterested curiosity", but I suspect I was half remembering the quote:

"Disinterested intellectual curiosity is the life blood of real civilization." (G.M.Trevelyan)

I would have said that it was a fair characterisation of what I take to be the outlook that inspires the founders of these forums.

[N C More]

I am not saying we are alone in the Universe.

But if we are alone in the Galaxy for all practical purposes, for all practical purposes were are alone in the Universe.

Isn't the galaxy just a tad too large (this is an understatement) to have arrived at that conclusion quite yet?

[SolusLupus]

Isn't the galaxy just a tad too large (this is an understatement) to have arrived at that conclusion quite yet?

This is EXACTLY my point, down to its very core!

[Gullible Jones]

Speaking of which, how would we be able to tell if anyone's across the core from us? Wouldn't the electromagnetic noise from the core drown out just about everything?

[William_Thompson]

This episode of Troops clearly shows that there is life in other galaxies. But we are talking about our own right now.

[Moderator note: the above file is over 28MB and requires Quicktime or equivalent.]

[William_Thompson]

I wish I could claim to have coined the phrase "disinterested curiosity", but I suspect I was half remembering the quote:

"Disinterested intellectual curiosity is the life blood of real civilization." (G.M.Trevelyan)

I would have said that it was a fair characterisation of what I take to be the outlook that inspires the founders of these forums.

Mayhaps the word "disintrested" whilst appearing in both vocabularies implies different meanings on our side of the pond. Here, I think, G.M.Trevelyan means "without hidden agendas".

Curiosity and Interest are simular concepts as used in The States commonly.

Anyway, now that I know what you mean let me say this. I feel the overwhelming thrill of what it would be like to Make Contact just like all of you. I feel its pull when I stop and think of it.

I was under this spell for most of my life until I did some research and began to understand what Fermi was getting at. Then I said, wait a second....

So the big question is this. Is it worth our expense, time, and energies to (let's say) devote a bit of hard drive space and CPU usage not to mention the wear on our computer for the reading and re-reading of data from the swing arm of our hard drives -- and the expense of electricity to use the SETI@Home project on the hope, dream and f. that we will get a hit because it would be so incredible even though the likelihood is infinitesimal?

It would be like winning the lottery --which is a great parallel to draw an example with. People who play the lottery would, on the whole, be better off investing the money in themselves.

We would be better off investing the money in ourselves.

You might say that ETI would give us the meaning of life. Well, if I had discovered the meaning of life, would that make me just as intelligent as the ETI?

[William_Thompson]

Isn't the galaxy just a tad too large (this is an understatement) to have arrived at that conclusion quite yet?

I think that is a lie. They have had more than enough time to be obvious even given the size of the galaxy.

And the good folks at The SETI Institute would agree.


Fermi's Paradox on The SETI Institute Part I
Fermi's Paradox on The SETI Institude Part II
Fermi's Paradox on The SETI Institude Part III

[Van Rijn]

Here is part of my collection of some evidence supporting why we Are, for all practical purposes, alone in the universe:

I started going through this list and found, rather than "evidence" it merely contained a list of assumptions. Let's count them, shall we?

1. It doesn't matter that there are billions of galaxies with billions of stars. The distance between galaxies is so staggering that any civilization in another galaxy would have changed or died during the time it would take to communicate to another galaxy.

1. Assumption about the lifespan of civilizations.
2. Implied assumption that there aren't closer civilizations

2. Things are not as they appear. And reality is not as hopeful as scientists who are looking for ET suggest. Technology has given us the ability to look for extra-solar planets. But scientists fail to mention that they are focusing their attention on star systems that are not binary. You see, even though there are billions of stars in our galaxy, you can take more than 2/3rds of those stars and discard them in a search for ET because they are binary stars. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980402c.html

3. Assumption that binary star systems cannot contain life.

3. Even if Life is abundant in the Galaxy, plant and animal life is rare. Take our planet as an example:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/alllife/threedomains.html
Plus, it took a long long long long long time for plant and animal life to come about:
http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/astrobiolog.../timeline2.htm. Also notice that plant and animal life occurred after a series of unlikely events. And, on top of all this, human life and other intelligent life is even rarer. Even if you take Earth as a model of a planet that exists throughout the galaxy we are still most likely alone.

4. Assumptions about the kinds of life that are possible.

5. Assumptions about the probability of the existence of different types of life.

6. Assumptions based on using Earth as a model.

4. Liquid water is rarer than you might think. Scientists that are hopeful that we are not alone in the galaxy often mention that all is needed is the existence of liquid water. It is a very common mistake that temperature is the only factor in keeping water in a liquid state. This is not true. Liquid water is rare because it requires a combination of temperature and pressure. Liquid water "boils" at room temperature in a vacuum.

7. Assumption that water is a requirement for ET life.

8. Assumption that liquid water is rare in the galaxy.

By the way, it is the lack of atmospheric pressure on Mars (1% of that on Earth) that is the reason why liquid water does not exist there today.

9. Assumption that there is no liquid water on or in Mars.

5. Geologists think that or sort of Earth/Moon arrangement is important for the existence of the kind of life we have:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x1.html. So the question arises, how probable is it that a small, rocky planet could have a planetoid moon of our size. According to the BBC special "The Planets" it is very improbable. Part of the mission of the Apollo project was to determine the origin of our moon. Because of the age and composition of the rocks on the moon it was eventually determined that the moon was born from a collision of another smaller planet into the Earth. Somehow the Earth survived and the upheaval of debris formed the moon. It is not very likely that our Earth/Moon arrangement is common.

10. Assumption that relatively large moons are rare (there are two examples in the solar system).

11. Assumption that the moon is important to our existence.

A bit more on this: Some years ago, it was assumed that large Jupiter-like planets were rare, based on our models of planet formation. It was also thought that Jupiter was important for getting rid of "junk" (reducing the number of large Earth impacts). As it turned out, large planets are quite common. The fact is, we simply don't have the information yet to say what is, or what isn't, important to the formation and continuation of life. Until we can see other star systems - actually see them, in detail - any argument along these lines is speculation at best.

6. The fact that we are alone is proved by Enrico Fermi's paradox: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec28.html. Scientists whose employment at NASA and other similar organizations depend on their ability to find reasons to disagree with Fermi cannot say that somehow they know better: http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureate...fermi-bio.html.

12. Assumption that the Fermi paradox has any meaning when we know so little.

So, twelve (at least) assumptions that you call "evidence." And you earlier posted other assumptions, calling those evidence as well. You have built a house of cards built on speculation and tiny scraps of real evidence. As I've said before, we can't come to any real conclusion until we have much more evidence.

[William_Thompson]

Van Rijn,

Liquid water cannot exist alone in space. Do you really think it is possible that it is in abundance?

I will leave your other comments alone because they speak for themself.

One good thing that I draw from my early years as a portrait artist was the habit of studying the subject matter before putting pencil to paper. I have to wonder if others could benefit from such a practice.

I am suprised you put so much energies into that list.

Apart from the point about Fermi, the list is intended to answer the "why" we are seemingly alone not "if" we are seemingly alone.

Fermi's Observation clearly answered the "if".

"Why" it is true is just a matter of being accademic and searching.

Like I said, I am suprised you put so much energies into that list. There is no point in trying to disprove something that is simply true.

And since the SETI Institute agrees with my position, with whom are you arguing against?