Are we alone?

[seattleshaver]

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.

That is how science gets done but it's rarely turned on its ear. Our observations aren't going to change. The CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) isn't going to change. There was another theory (Steady State) that was fairly popular until the evidence began, overwhelmingly, to support the Big Bang.

Any new theory would still have to include all the new data that we have learned in recent years. The Big Bang, Evolution, and Relativity are theories that have been tested for 100 years or so now. They are as close to fact as you can get. Any incremental improvements in predictions would have to largely still encompass most of those theories just as Relativity still has to account all of our observations under Newton's Laws.

The Heliocentric model prevailed in spite of the authorities (Church) of the time once we had telescopes that showed moons revolving around Jupiter. The problem wasn't "science".

What is your basis for thinking that the Big Bang will be turned on its ear? What do you feel is wrong with the Big Bang (what is your basis for this thinking) and what do you think "science" will discover when it's turned on its ear?

These theories did originally come from bright young minds. What is your basis for thinking that people are only looking to confirm the Big Bang? Initially there were competing theories until the evidence began to point to the Big Bang.

Your objections aren't really scientific in nature are they?

 

[Seraphim]

Your objections aren't really scientific in nature are they?

I don't think that's a fair assertion.

An apparently expanding universe doesn't necessarily mean that at one point in time everything was contained within one point. Scientifically speaking (as opposed to what you appear to be insinuating) the concept falls apart at it's inception. If the universe was indeed contained within a conceptual point, in what was that conceptual point residing? Nothing? Nothingness? Is that nothingness still out there, outside of our expanding universe?

And this loops back to my assertion that I tend to think that the universe is both infinite and eternal as opposed to finite in both space and time. If our universe is expanding into an external Nothingness, well then, that Nothingness must go on forever, mustn't it? If not, where is the edge?

And as far as relativity being a proven fact, I again put forth the 95% "fudge factor" necessary to make it work vis a vis dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter and Dark energy are unobservable, undetectable, etc etc, yet make up 95% of the universe? That doesn't sound like a solid basis on which to build a plausible explanation.

"The problem wasn't "science"

No, the problem is never "science", the problem is not doing science correctly. Making assumptions about observations. Not being willing to have theories challenged. As in the case of the geocentric model--observations were made, and interpreted incorrectly, and then defended stubbornly.

 

[Chan Eil Whiskers]

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

Can't prove a negative.

 

[Mullen88]

Can't prove a negative.

How so?

 

[Mullen88]

Can't prove a negative.

Wait. I thought about it. I think you were agreeing with me..... it’s been a long day.

 

[ouch]

Time is also ad infinitum in the universe. It does not stop and it does not start. It has always been and it always will be.

Given infinite time and infinite possibilities it is impossible for something/anything to not happen

This is not true, and it has nothing to do with whether the universe has infinite time with which to operate. As a species we have great difficulty conceptualizing infinities because they do not behave in the same manner as the ordinary but still marvelous numbers with which we are familiar. A set may be infinite yet incomplete. Proof of this is much easier than one would think.

Consider the set of all odd numbers, i.e., 1,3,5,7,9....... ad infinitum, as you like to say.
It is in fact an infinite set.
Q: Does this set contain the number 12?
A: No.
How is this possible? It's an infinite set, but it contains no even numbers.

There are many arguments offered by some pretty bright people which would appear at first glance to draw a simple conclusion. Example:
There cannot be an infinite number of stars because if there were you would see a star no matter which direction you looked and the entire sky would be bright. Sounds plausible, but it's really no different from the odd/even problem. One of the properties of an infinite set is that it doesn't change size whether you add or subtract numbers to it.

 

[Chan Eil Whiskers]

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

In order to prove there are not other forms of life somewhere in the universe one would have to be able to examine the entirety of the universe.

The burden of proof is on someone claiming there are other forms of life.

Believe what you want.

{In my view, Santa Claus travels between the North Pole and the South Pole at the speed of light or faster along with all his elves, reindeer, workshops, and Mrs. Santa Claus. We can't see any of this because it is so fast. I'll believe it until it's proven it's not true.}

Happy shaves,

Jim

 

[ouch]

The beauty of science is its self correcting nature. It begins with the scientist, who upon any discovery should immediately make every effort to disprove his own work, if for no other reason than to not look like an idiot.

The scientific process in a nutshell:

 

[seattleshaver]

I don't think that's a fair assertion.

It was a question and not an assertion. How can a question not be fair?

An apparently expanding universe doesn't necessarily mean that at one point in time everything was contained within one point. Scientifically speaking (as opposed to what you appear to be insinuating) the concept falls apart at it's inception. If the universe was indeed contained within a conceptual point, in what was that conceptual point residing? Nothing? Nothingness? Is that nothingness still out there, outside of our expanding universe?

And this loops back to my assertion that I tend to think that the universe is both infinite and eternal as opposed to finite in both space and time. If our universe is expanding into an external Nothingness, well then, that Nothingness must go on forever, mustn't it? If not, where is the edge?

The Big Bang doesn't attempt to answer the beginning of the Universe and what, if anything, came before. That's an unknown question that, at this point, may not be answerable or testable. The BB, according to the theory, came a fraction of a second after the beginning. That's a crutch, of course, but it's because physics can't currently provide that answer.

The concept of everything coming from a very dense "point" is probably more mathematical in nature than anything else. A few seconds after the BB, the Universe was "large" (after inflation). From this point on is where there is something to test, where physics can do its thing. The CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) came about 300,000 or so years later. Things start to be more tangible from that point forward.

In other words, there is little doubt that some dramatic event occurred in our Universe roughly 14 billion years ago.

The Universe isn't expanding "into" anything. As far as an "edge". You can go around the world without finding the end of the world or an edge.

And as far as relativity being a proven fact, I again put forth the 95% "fudge factor" necessary to make it work vis a vis dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter and Dark energy are unobservable, undetectable, etc etc, yet make up 95% of the universe? That doesn't sound like a solid basis on which to build a plausible explanation.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy isn't really a part of Relativity, only tangentially. Einstein didn't predict either nor was it required for his theories. Relativity involves time/space being relative and the speed of light being absolute. It also involves time dilation, equivalency of energy and mass...

Dark Matter is needed as an explanation for the effects of gravity on large scales. Dark energy is the expanding Universe. The Universe is expanding. The rotation rate of gallaxies does require more mass than we can observe. If you have a better explanation, I'd be interested in hearing it.

No, the problem is never "science", the problem is not doing science correctly. Making assumptions about observations. Not being willing to have theories challenged. As in the case of the geocentric model--observations were made, and interpreted incorrectly, and then defended stubbornly.

The Church was behind the stubborn defense of the status quo because they felt it contradicted their teachings. Later they got around that (Roman Catholic Church) by embracing any science and place God just before that, meaning that God ultimately started whatever process Science should uncover.

Where is the "stubborn" behavior currently? What scientific subject is academia refusing to study or what valid data is stubbornly being ignored? Where Evolution is concerned, for instance, it's not the scientific community that is ignoring data. Even the mainstream religious community isn't ignoring it. It seems to mainly in the U.S and even then only in small religious communities in Texas and maybe Tennessee.

 

[ouch]

In order to prove there are not other forms of life somewhere in the universe one would have to be able to examine the entirety of the universe.

The burden of proof is on someone claiming there are other forms of life.

Believe what you want.

This is true. The onus is on the claimant to provide proof.

However, there are a lot of folks who would claim that life cannot come into existence because it is too unlikely in terms of probability. Apparently the irony of their being able to make such a statement is lost on them.

 

[ouch]

The BB, according to the theory, came a fraction of a second after the beginning.

Actually, I believe B&B came into existence in August of 2005 or thereabouts.

 

[Mullen88]

In order to prove there are not other forms of life somewhere in the universe one would have to be able to examine the entirety of the universe.

The burden of proof is on someone claiming there are other forms of life.

Believe what you want.

{In my view, Santa Claus travels between the North Pole and the South Pole at the speed of light or faster along with all his elves, reindeer, workshops, and Mrs. Santa Claus. We can't see any of this because it is so fast. I'll believe it until it's proven it's not true.}

Happy shaves,

Jim

I think the burden of proof is on those that say we are alone. Because the probability that we are is slim to none. Same goes for Santa. The burden of proof is on those that say he exists. Because the probability that he performs those duties are slim to none.

Agree to disagree I guess.

Cheers.

 

[Raissermesser]

Shrug. Since our experience is only two worlds (the earth and the moon), all anyone has are probabilities, and at this point they're scientific wild guesses. I used to use the number of stars in the universe as an argument in favor of life elsewhere, too. After all, one estimate is that there's about 1x10^24 stars in the observable universe. That's about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Wow! But what do the odds look like?

Not all of those stars are good candidates for life. Some are first generation, with only hydrogen and helium. Others are variable. Some are huge, bright, and short lived, and some are small and red and long lived, but dim. A good question is how many of those stars could host life. Our own star is a class G. (The classes are O, B, A, F, G, K, M). Upper estimates on the percentage of class G stars is 8%. That knocks the number of stars down to 8x10^22.

But that's not all. Just because a star is a class G doesn't mean it would have a planet in the "Goldilocks Zone." Only an estimates 1 in 5 class G stars are thought to have a planet there. That drops our possible stars to 1.6x10^22.

It turns out that stars aren't the only places with Goldilocks Zones. Galaxies have them, too. Too close to the denser galactic bulge and you're subjected to a greater chance of being near a star that goes boom or a black hole digesting a big meal, and all the radiation that goes with them. Too far out isn't so hot, either, when it comes to possible ingredients. One estimate is that 95% of all stars are not in a habitable zone. That knocks our number of stars down to 8x10^20. That's 800,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Still a lot of places for life, right?

Let's look back at our star classifications. There's a mnemonic to remember them that goes "Oh, Be A Fine Girl: Kiss me." Nice and simple. Without quotation marks, it's only 28 characters long. If we hit a character on a standard US keyboard, there's a 1 in 95 chance of hitting the first letter; then another 1 in 95 chance of hitting the next, and so on. The odds of randomly typing that simple sentence is 1 in 95^28. That's 1 in over 2.378x10^55.

We don't know all the steps that would be involved in life randomly springing from inanimate matter, but it's a fare guess that the odds of each step is greater than 1 in 95, and the number of required steps for the simplest life is more than 28. I don't think it's far-fetched to guess that it's a lot higher than the odds of us randomly typing "Oh, Be A Fine Girl: Kiss Me."

That's just to get life. And we haven't even asked about the role of catastrophic events, which would increase the odds even more.

All of a sudden, that 8x10^22 looks mighty small. So does the full 1x10^24 estimated number of stars. And that's why I think that if life is a random occurrence, then the earth didn't just win at the casino; it broke the bank.

 

[Seraphim]

The Universe isn't expanding "into" anything. As far as an "edge". You can go around the world without finding the end of the world or an edge.

.

That is indeed an interesting analogy.

Yet, when you hold a marble or billiard ball in your hand, the boundary is quite clear.

So, that goes to the question of observational objectivity. A man can walk, sail, whatever around the earth endlessly and declare it as an “unending expanse”, since his view of the data supports his claim quite clearly.

Yet to the man in orbit, by way of a different viewpoint, the misunderstanding is clearly seen.

 

[seattleshaver]

That is indeed an interesting analogy.

Yet, when you hold a marble or billiard ball in your hand, the boundary is quite clear.

So, that goes to the question of observational objectivity. A man can walk, sail, whatever around the earth endlessly and declare it as an “unending expanse”, since his view of the data supports his claim quite clearly.

Yet to the man in orbit, by way of a different viewpoint, the misunderstanding is clearly seen.

Yes, in that case it's quite clear. In the case of the Universe, we don't know everything. However, we know a lot so that's no argument against what we do know. We don't know if the Universe is open, closed or flat. It's likely to be flat however that doesn't mean that there is an edge. It just means that are far as we can measure, there doesn't seem to be a curve. Our mind doesn't easily picture things that don't occur in our everyday life. But then, you were encouraging us to embrace the new and unusual.

The same applies to how the Universe will end. It can be expanding forever, contracting (The Big Crunch) or reaching some equilibrium. The current data/thinking seems to indicate expanding forever until (as I understand it) energy density is just too low for any activity.

Meaning, no more new stars and no more life or change or activity. When you look into space at night you would see no stars as they would all be too far away to observe. There would be no interstellar nebula for gravity to condense into stars.

 

[seattleshaver]

Shrug. Since our experience is only two worlds (the earth and the moon), all anyone has are probabilities, and at this point they're scientific wild guesses. I used to use the number of stars in the universe as an argument in favor of life elsewhere, too. After all, one estimate is that there's about 1x10^24 stars in the observable universe. That's about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Wow! But what do the odds look like?

Not all of those stars are good candidates for life. Some are first generation, with only hydrogen and helium. Others are variable. Some are huge, bright, and short lived, and some are small and red and long lived, but dim. A good question is how many of those stars could host life. Our own star is a class G. (The classes are O, B, A, F, G, K, M). Upper estimates on the percentage of class G stars is 8%. That knocks the number of stars down to 8x10^22.

But that's not all. Just because a star is a class G doesn't mean it would have a planet in the "Goldilocks Zone." Only an estimates 1 in 5 class G stars are thought to have a planet there. That drops our possible stars to 1.6x10^22.

It turns out that stars aren't the only places with Goldilocks Zones. Galaxies have them, too. Too close to the denser galactic bulge and you're subjected to a greater chance of being near a star that goes boom or a black hole digesting a big meal, and all the radiation that goes with them. Too far out isn't so hot, either, when it comes to possible ingredients. One estimate is that 95% of all stars are not in a habitable zone. That knocks our number of stars down to 8x10^20. That's 800,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Still a lot of places for life, right?

Let's look back at our star classifications. There's a mnemonic to remember them that goes "Oh, Be A Fine Girl: Kiss me." Nice and simple. Without quotation marks, it's only 28 characters long. If we hit a character on a standard US keyboard, there's a 1 in 95 chance of hitting the first letter; then another 1 in 95 chance of hitting the next, and so on. The odds of randomly typing that simple sentence is 1 in 95^28. That's 1 in over 2.378x10^55.

We don't know all the steps that would be involved in life randomly springing from inanimate matter, but it's a fare guess that the odds of each step is greater than 1 in 95, and the number of required steps for the simplest life is more than 28. I don't think it's far-fetched to guess that it's a lot higher than the odds of us randomly typing "Oh, Be A Fine Girl: Kiss Me."

That's just to get life. And we haven't even asked about the role of catastrophic events, which would increase the odds even more.

All of a sudden, that 8x10^22 looks mighty small. So does the full 1x10^24 estimated number of stars. And that's why I think that if life is a random occurrence, then the earth didn't just win at the casino; it broke the bank.

That's kind of like the "finely tuned Universe" argument. Everything has to be just right or we wouldn't exist so what are the odds of that happening "without some help"? Well, we are here so it can happen. In that case, it may be that there are many Universes and each one is "tuned" differently so of course we are on this one and we think this one is "finely tuned". Life on other Universes think the same thing.

In your argument you eliminate possible life from all stars not of the same class as our Sun. This is not necessarily valid. The so called "Goldilocks" zone could just be closer to the Sun. Such a world could also exist with life for a longer period of time and therefore "could" develop a more advanced civilization.

Our Sun gets approximately 10% hotter every 1 billion years and the Goldilocks Zone therefore moves. Earth has only got about another 1 billion years before that's the issue here. With a dimmer star, presumably, that issue would be lessened as their time burning hydrogen int he main sequence is much, much longer.

Since we don't know how to create life, any odds assigned would suggest life isn't likely to be found. However, your keyboard analogy is similar to the Watchmaker analogy which argues for a Maker. Put all the parts for a watch in the forest and what are the odds of it assembling itself into a pocket watch?

The fact of the matter is that life does exist and it came about pretty early in our planet's existence and it's pretty pervasive and not easily stamped out.

Even though I would argue for many limiting reasons that life isn't commonplace in every solar system, I think you've gone too far in your argument.

 

[Raissermesser]

I'm just getting a handle on the odds. I'm not headed toward any sort of religious or philosophical argument, and would really rather avoid that. I limited it to class G suns for a reason: a greater chance that they have elements needed for life. For 1st generation stars had nothing but hydrogen, fusing them into more, the bigger ones getting to iron and the big enough ones going boom and fusing elements beyond it. Our own sun is a 2nd or 3rd generation star, and has all sorts of elements other than hydrogen.

It also has a life span longer than the bigger stars, who go through their hydrogen faster. That's important for random chance. OTOH, red dwarfs are the longest lived, but how are they fixed for elements? I'm sure astronomers know the answer to that, but I'm not an astronomer, and don't. I do know that there's at least one case of life on a planet orbiting a class G star, and went with that.

The problems of life in the tough, mean, orbits of the galactic bulge is totally a thing due to the increased number of things that can destroy it. I was trying to guestimate that when I came across that it's already been done, hence the galactic habitable zone.

Is my guestimate too limited? Perhaps. Yet I'm struck by how there doesn't seem to be actual attempts calculate the odds. That's what led me to try to calculate the odds for life, period, only to realize that no one knows the rules of the game. The simplest life we know, viruses, may not even be life, and need a functioning cell to replicate. Even something as simple as a cell membrane, which would be necessary to keep the self replicating molecules from combining with something else and no longer replicate, is surprisingly complex. I'm guessing that random life would need a lipid bubble to keep it together, but what are the odds that the self replicating molecules would also replicate their container?

And yet we know there was life on earth pretty early after everything settled down, so assume that if it's easy here, then it must be easy everywhere. Not at all: earth could just be lucky. I have a mental image of the earth as a lucky drunk at the roulette table going "Aw (hic) it's easy: You just pick a number and let it ride."

 

[seattleshaver]

I'm not saying that you are wrong, just probably too limiting in your assumptions.

The real problem is that we haven't found other life so we have no basis for determining the probability that it is everywhere. Finding one source of life that didn't arise in the same way we did would obviously be the holy grail. Finding it on Mars might not even do the trick if it showed that we came from the same source.

One interesting idea that I read about recently was looking for microbes here on Earth that arose independently from how we arose. In other words, if life is so common and easy to start here on Earth, look for life that arose a second time independant of any existing life.

 

[Esox]

And that's why I think that if life is a random occurrence, then the earth didn't just win at the casino; it broke the bank.

I think life in the universe is completely random, but also very common.

"In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way, 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars."

List of potentially habitable exoplanets.

Far-Off Planets Like the Earth Dot the Galaxy

Prevalence of Earth-size planets orbiting Sun-like stars

Estimated at ~11 billion in our galaxy alone, orbiting stars like ours. 1 in 11 billion is pretty high odds and a bet like that could 'break the bank' so to speak, but I think chances are there are more than a single winner on that lottery ticket.

TESS I believe will find and analyze some very interesting planets, but even it can see only a tiny fraction of our own galaxy.

TESS - Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite

 

[Chan Eil Whiskers]

Shrug. Since our experience is only two worlds (the earth and the moon), all anyone has are probabilities, and at this point they're scientific wild guesses...All of a sudden, that 8x10^22 looks mighty small. So does the full 1x10^24 estimated number of stars. And that's why I think that if life is a random occurrence, then the earth didn't just win at the casino; it broke the bank.

I'm just getting a handle on the odds. I'm not headed toward any sort of religious or philosophical argument, and would really rather avoid that...And yet we know there was life on earth pretty early after everything settled down, so assume that if it's easy here, then it must be easy everywhere. Not at all: earth could just be lucky. I have a mental image of the earth as a lucky drunk at the roulette table going "Aw (hic) it's easy: You just pick a number and let it ride."

Very nicely done.

It seems obvious to me there's no way to know the answer to the OP's questions had the questions been framed as anything more than opinion.

Any analysis we might come up with is going to be based on a bunch of assumptions, as you know, every one of which is subject to perhaps endless discussion.

Happy shaves,

Jim