Are we alone in the universe?

[ACACE]

well the universe is pretty big even if the conditions in certain star systems are crap compared to ours, different lifeforms may form from different combinations of chemicals. cos humans are carbon based lifeforms. but because when when you look up at the different systems you are not seeing them as they are you are seeing them as they were depending on the distance they could hundreds or even millions of years old. It is said that a area the size of a grain of sand is said to contain millions of stars and their systems in which they dwell. with a universe as tightly packed as that the chances of life being out there are pretty high

[Keanumoreira]

Of course we aren't alone. Do you have any idea how many Earth-like planets exist in the first 500,000 stars surrounding the sun? Thousands alone. Now, taken into the slim possibility of a planet that can harbor life, about half of those would be good candidates. These are all planets that have water, air, ect, but these 50% are most likely going to have the other stuff too that we don't normally find. That would be an atmosphere (stable of course), a present water cycle, remains in the Goldie lox zone just enough so that life may thrive, the planet contains a molten core that is constantly in motion (essential, because this is one of the top factors of an Earth-like planet's heat source. Mars is hypothesized to have had life, and lost it because its core stopped dead), contains a magnetic field to shield from deadly radiation, is outside the zone of any asteroid belt where constant collisions would annihilate any early life, and so on and so forth. These chances are very slim, but again, the probability of that many stars with how many planets in the small given zone around our own sun alone still gives at least a moderate chance that one planet with life on it at least exists in that area. Apply this to the rest of the universe, and the numbers fly off the charts. If you use the Drake Equation, then you pretty much have your answer already.

[marharth]

The drake equation is incorrect since it leaves out certain variables and is not specific. Its a good basis for understanding the basics, but it is not very accurate.

 

That being said, you shouldn't need a equation to be able to figure out that we are not alone. The universe is huge, our galaxy alone likely has other live.

 

Also, why did this get bumped from 2004?

[Nintii]

Does living on a different plane of existance count as "We are not alone" ?

[Keanumoreira]

Does living on a different plane of existance count as "We are not alone" ?

 

Yep

[stars2heaven]

Never mind....i didn't notice I was responding to a very old post Edited October 19, 2011 by stars2heaven

[MycosynthPhantom]

I'd say we're not alone.

 

There's just too much space, well, out in space, and too much stuff in it. If it happened once, why couldn't life happen again somewhere else, right?

[StormTemplar]

The question I'd ask isn't "are we alone", but rather "why does it look like we're alone". In other words, Fermi paradox : there seems to be much less life out there than what there should be in theory. Why have we not contacted / been contacted by other life forms with all the radio waves we send out to space? Wouldn't superior civilisations have taken knowledge of our existence a long time ago? Or are we actually among the most developped civilisations out there? Did we come to existence at an early stage of the Universe, not considering its lifespan until now but the lifespan it will eventually get?

 

When we consider our planet individually, it did take it 4.5 billion years to develop intelligent, conscious life. I might be wrong here but that's nearly 1/3rd of the Universe's estimated lifespan so far. And if I remember well, the Universe was too hostile to life during its first billions of years for it to have existed. Might be wrong there once again, I need to start reading books again. So, could it really be that we're at the lead of evolution right now, like we are ahead of every other animal on this planet? (That's already billions of species we're ahead of on this planet, it's not nothing).

[marharth]

We are extremely minor. We haven't even explored our solar system completely yet, what makes you think we would take notice of advanced civilizations that could be in millions of other galaxies?

 

About 300 million years after the big bang many stars and galaxies formed.

 

Our earth is not ahead of anything, there are many other planets and stars like our own.

[StormTemplar]

How do you explain the Fermi paradox then? My point is that nothing can tell us if the Universe is to be considered as "old" or "young". For as much as we know, it might exist for 1000 billion years until it collapses or disintegrates or whatever. And that case, we'd be pretty damn early. Those are just questions and theories, but the fact remains that so far no advanced civilisation has shown up until now. If we're capable of scanning a limited area of our Galaxy, in still primitive ways, they should be capable of much more, if they're indeed ahead of us. Evolution is exponential. 100 years difference can make a huge difference as we see on our planet, now imagine a couple billion. Edited October 31, 2011 by StormTemplar