Are we alone?

[Toothpick]

I don’t believe aliens have ever visited us. That’s not to say that I don’t believe in life on other plants. I’m just saying I don’t believe in aliens visiting Earth. And I won’t until I have physical evidence that another life form has landed and all the top men say so.

As far as life on another planet? I think it’s silly to think it’s not plausible. We are talking about an unfathomable amount of galaxies, planets, stars, ect out there. We evolved.....how can we be so sure there is not more life forms like us out there somewhere? We can’t be. Or at least microorganisms.

But do I sit up at night thinking about it? Nope.

 

[deafficianado]

The documentary on Netflix "Unacknowledged" makes a compelling argument that aliens do exist and provides proof with a real alien corpse!

 

[Mr. Bonney]

While I'd like to think that the universe is like Star Trek (it'd be quite cool!) I have to say I don't believe it's so. Bacteria and algae, maybe. But considering how unique the earth is - just the right size, just the right mass, just the right distance from the just the right color star, on and on characteristics - I'd bet we're pretty unique, too.

 

[seattleshaver]

...

It took decades to disprove the accepted scientific theory that everything revolved around the earth. Many who disagreed were persecuted, derided, and some outright killed for their radically different view which is now held as the correct view.

Science wasn't what was holding back the view that Earth revolves around the Sun. Aristarchus (roughtly 200 BC) was the first to present that model. The church was the one doing the persecuting and the holding back of the heliocentric model and they were quite successful in doing so for more than 1,000 years.

Science isn't adverse to change. Again, that's tended to be the church.

 

[Seraphim]

Don’t go down that road here, please

 

[seattleshaver]

The strongest argument for other life in the Universe is just the size of the Universe and all the potential for life given that size (whether it's infinite or not). Life could be rare and there could still be a lot of it given that size.

That argument influences my thinking. That life exists on Earth and "must" exist elsewhere or be common is a tough argument to make given a sample size of only 1.

There are a lot of potential limiting factors to life being common. Sure, there are many stars and many planets and therefore many planets in the "habitability zone" where water would remain liquid. It's also helpful for a planet to be able to have an atmosphere and that's (probably) not possible if the planet doesn't also have a magnetic field to keep the solar wind from blowing that atmosphere away.

There is a limited time period of habitability for any planet since the Sun (any Sun) burns hotter as time goes on. Here on Earth, we only have about another billion years before life will no longer be possible here.

If we are talking about intelligent life that we might be able to communicate with as the life that we are looking for...that is another limiting factor. Microbes might exit and intelligent life might be rare. Intelligent life might be common but not "adaptable" intelligent life so there might be whales but not humans. Whales might be intelligent but they aren't adaptable (other than to the ocean) in the way that humans are.

Life might not have been common on the first generation stars/planets so we could be among the earliest intelligent life and it might be much more common in the future. Distances are so great that life could be everywhere and we still might not be able to be aware of it. Interstellar space travel isn't a given for an intelligent species. It could happen but it could very easily not happen as well. Star Trek isn't the only possible outcome.

It's also quite possible that human-like evolution is quite rare with the added problem solving abilities that have evolved quite far from figuring out how to hunt on the savanna after coming down from the trees. It's not a given that every intelligent species goes from that to inventing airplanes and Gameboys.

 

[Raissermesser]

Don’t go down that road here, please

Actually, what the church was holding back was Galileo acting like the north end of a south bound mule. The guy was brilliant, but also an obnoxious jerk. What kept the geocentric model going was both casual observation and simpler calculations. They didn't have Occam's Razor for all that time (Hey! This discussion turned to shaving!) but they went with the simplest explanation is likely the best. Then came better measurements and Ptolomy's complicated model to account for them, then even better measurements, and the geocentric model wasn't the simplest explanation anymore.

The funny thing is, the geocentric model is still used on occasion to simplify some calculations, even though the earth orbits the sun. Sort of like the old joke "Assume a spherical cow."

As to science and change ... oh, my. Science has been the scene of more knock-down drag-outs than a honkey-tonk. It can get very nasty.

 

[Chan Eil Whiskers]

My background includes an undergraduate degree in history, but I have far more education, training, and experience in science.

Sometimes I want to know what flavor of ice cream people like, and why? What goes into their preferences? I'm not sure I can tell you why I like what I like or believe what I believe but I think it important to explore these things. Should we limit ourselves to known unknowns? Can we always agree on what is known? I doubt it.

Science wasn't what was holding back the view that Earth revolves around the Sun. Aristarchus (roughtly 200 BC) was the first to present that model. The church was the one doing the persecuting and the holding back of the heliocentric model and they were quite successful in doing so for more than 1,000 years.

Seems to me this either is or is not historical fact.

Science isn't adverse to change. Again, that's tended to be the church.

If by science you mean a body of knowledge and a community, science could be argued to be adverse to change. Science as a method of inquiry tends to produce change, sometimes rapidly, often slowly.

I'm not entirely sure the church in its entirety is and has been always adverse to change, but I believe you're making a particular point about the church in Rome in terms of a particular view and model. That point either is or is not historical fact.

Don’t go down that road here, please

I'm not sure what road you don't want us to go down here. History? The history of the church? The history of science?

The OP posed questions about beliefs. I'm not sure how we can take off the table an historical perspective. All aspects of our culture, history, philosophical underpinnings, and all that goes into our way of appreciating, thinking about, and discovering what is within and around us seem to me potentially important as we examine the questions raised by the initial post.

We don't have to examine anything of course. Everybody can simply state their belief.

• I believe we're not alone.
• I believe we are alone.

Take your choice. Or, maybe there's a third choice as in I have no idea and don't believe anything when it comes to the question of whether we're alone or not.

Going beyond that, going beyond just picking between two or three choices, talking about why we might believe or not believe either of these positions is going to necessarily involve, I believe, all sorts of perhaps uncomfortable points of view. Why try to limit the roads traveled in the exploration?

Of course, I could be entirely wrong. I often am. In that case, I prefer vanilla ice cream with chocolate sauce but don't ask me why.

In any case, happy shaves,

Jim

 

[Ad Astra]

Not just a good question, the ultimate question.

Biogenesis - life from nothing - is impossible; yet it happened at least once.

The best part is how thousands of people have seen unexplained aerial phenomena over thousands of years, and still prevailing thought is: "Nah. Couldn't be. Oh, they're OUT there, but no."

Jacques Vallee has a really good book about old sightings … "The Roman army saw two giant silver shields fly over …" etc. Sad part is said book is in the New Age section …


AA

 

[Canadian Mountain Man]

Doubt there is any distinctly similar life in the galaxy since even if another planet was a spot on equivalent to earth just too many variables to end up a the same spot. That said, it wouldn't at all surprise me if in the vastness of it all there isn't something else out there that would be considered to be intelligent life. Would assume it to be very different then anything we've ever seen and possibly so different that even if we were to encounter it that we'd be able to perceive it exists. i.e. is it something that consists purely of energy, or is there a dimension we're not capable of seeing

 

[soccerguy83]

I think that part of the complex part of the equation that far to many feel is not relevant is we are looking for "life" by the constants bound to "life" here on Earth; must need water, must need a breathable gas, must be made of carbon atoms, planet must have an atmosphere, planet must be the same distance from the sun, etc. On another planet, it very well could be that the "life" there has found a way to adapt and survive within none of the aforementioned constraints. "Life" as we know it really may not be what we are looking for.

 

[Mick]

I think that part of the complex part of the equation that far to many feel is not relevant is we are looking for "life" by the constants bound to "life" here on Earth; must need water, must need a breathable gas, must be made of carbon atoms, planet must have an atmosphere, planet must be the same distance from the sun, etc. On another planet, it very well could be that the "life" there has found a way to adapt and survive within none of the aforementioned constraints. "Life" as we know it really may not be what we are looking for.

Everyone Hope's to find "people" like us, not germs that will use us as a host.

Looking for and finding lifeforms with fingers, toes, and bad breath will not be easy, if not impossible.

The narrow mental view of our species that historically can only think in terms of "if it ain't like us it's not human" will be the main impediment in the search.
.

 

[G-Dogg]

Judging by some posts I see on social media (but not THIS forum, obviously), I'd be happy for intelligent life to gain a stronger foothold on this planet anytime soon.

As for the original question: yes, I believe there are other life-forms out there. I find it inconceivable that, given the vastness of the universe, all of the unknown unknowns, and the laws of probability, that we are alone.

 

[Raissermesser]

I'm not sure what road you don't want us to go down here. History? The history of the church? The history of science?

I assume it's because it can lead to arguments of religion. Since you've mentioned history, I'm a bit cynical about it. Okay, so I'm a bit cynical about everything, but I've ran into a situation once where a cite didn't exist. When I went to look for it, it just wasn't there.

That was an example of someone maybe cheating or maybe got confused with their notes. But much of it comes from people simply being people, and if someone's pressed for time, there's a temptation to give it less than best effort just to get it out the door. Realizing that helped in math classes when I realized some undergraduate making the problems was probably going to work backward from a nice, clean, result. In history, the temptation is to cite a secondary source and call it a day. That's how text books wound up with claims that Columbus' sailors feared they'd sail off the edge of the earth, even though that was completely bogus.

Sometimes history is deliberately tweaked a bit. Sometimes it's a bit of sanitation for presentation to the younger set. And yes, sometimes there's an agenda. But never attribute to malice what you can to incompetence, and I think most of it is simply parroting secondary sources.

That means a bit of care is needed. The history of science is like the history of anything else, and what we might think is so (like an old 5th Grade US geography textbook that repeated Washington Irving's claim about Columbus as fact) may not be. What we do know for certain can be absolutely fascinating, and sometimes heartbreaking.

 

[Ad Astra]

Fermi's Paradox makes me sad, but getting protein-harvested/having Earth's heavy metals stripped/oceans drained would also make me sad.

To paraphrase Stephen Hawking, "Maybe we should shut up. Loud critters get eaten.*"

Oh, they're out there. They are so out there. It's just a matter of time.

The Rex Heflin photos have always bothered me ... sure, it's fake. As you say; no such thing. But why is there a dust disturbance underneath this thing? Spinning and going along with the object?

AA


*not what he said, really, but you get the idea.

 

[TheVez2]

If anyone out there believes that there is not life out there, you just need to watch this video, to see how ridiculously shortsighted that viewpoint is.

 

[Chan Eil Whiskers]

If anyone out there believes that there is not life out there, you just need to watch this video, to see how ridiculously shortsighted that viewpoint is.

Interesting and informative video. For what it is, it's great, but does it prove anything or provide any facts in support of us having cousins elsewhere?

I enjoyed watching it. I always enjoy things which give me a better idea how big the universe is. it's very hard to grasp even for a second.

Happy shaves,

Jim

 

[seattleshaver]

I don't think we would have problems recognizing life (up close), physics doesn't change. The bit about looking for liquid water, atmosphere etc. is because that's our best guess of what to look for and since we are looking for planets that we can't actually "see" and therefore have to derive possible environments for life...that's probably the best (only) way to approach the search at the moment.

The reality is probably more mundane than we would like for it to be with a lot of low level life that we can never examine and very little Star Trek.

The good news for the search is that the Universe is very large. The bad news is that the Universe is very large.

 

[Seraphim]

The Galileo situation, with the geocentric or heliocentric explanations is quite pertinent, in my opinion.

From a simple observation, the geocentric model makes alot of sense. The sun comes up, the sun goes down, the moon and stars go round and round. There are some pesky planets that don't quite mesh with the model, but lets' set them aside....

One of my biggest beefs is that I feel that the scientific community is stuck on the Big Bang theory in much the same way as earlier scientists were stuck on the geocentric model. It seems that observations are made with the view to confirm the BB theory instead of trying to analyze it from other possibilities. The observations seem to show the universe is expanding, thus at one point in time it must have been much more compact, so compact it was infinitesimally small and burst forth in the Big Bang....Yes, a plausible theory. But then again, so was the idea of everything revolving around the earth. Until someone came along and sorted out what we actually were observing.

I await a bright young mind to come along and turn the Big Bang theory on its ear. Because that's how science gets done.

 

[Mullen88]

In my view, there’s other forms of life in our Universe until it’s proven there’s not.