OK. It took a while to grasp that you were talking about extra-terrestrial life. I find several flaws in your argument. Specifically:Ok, well since nature has an almost unlimited area, material and time to accomplish a life combination, we should have detected it. In all directions and areas. According to mathematical probability, many civilizations should have come and gone. The EM pollution would last much longer than any civilization.
So, being that we have not, life must be unique. An event NOT caused by nature.
And being that it is so quiet(not one peep), Occam's razor should apply.
What is that assumption?I am only making one assumption. And the detectable evidence agrees with that assumption.
On the contrary. I am not, in this context, using probability. I simply pointed out the assumptions inherent in your use of probability when you implicitly invoked the Drake equation. Remember? You said this:You are using probability......and look at all the assumptions/conditions needed for it.
According to mathematical probability, many civilizations should have come and gone.
Please provide evidence, preferably in the form of research articles from well regarded peer reviewed journals, that alien life should be common.Even if the alien life were just primordial, it should be common, and we would see spectra of it.
We do not have the technology to detect such life. Good luck trying to demonstrate that we do. Better yet, just accept that this is not currently a possibility,Even if it wasn't DNA based.......we would see something foreign or unfamiliar..
Because that is all that we currently have the technology to detect. Again, if you think you can demonstrate that we can, then demonstrate it. I do mean demonstrate it, with appropriate references, not unsubstantiated assertions.Think about it.........all we detect in every direction.....is just normal non bio matter.
Ok, well since nature has an almost unlimited area, material and time to accomplish a life combination, we should have detected it. In all directions and areas. According to mathematical probability, many civilizations should have come and gone. The EM pollution would last much longer than any civilization.
So, being that we have not, life must be unique. An event NOT caused by nature.
And being that it is so quiet(not one peep), Occam's razor should apply.
You were the one who raised the issue of probability. I have had nothing to say on it other than to point out that the probability arguments re-alien life form part of your argument, not - at present - mine.Sorry, I thought you were for natural life. The only argument for alien life IS probability.
Internet convention, forum guidelines and common courtesy require that one backs up all unconventional assertions (and certain conventional ones) with appropriate citations. Please keep that in mind as we move ahead in this discussion.Ask any astronomer or astrophysicist
So you are basing your argument, in part, on the expectation that when we have the technology to detect alien life we shall find nothing. That is a worthless argument.I believe it is in development and being improved steadily. We will improve with A.I. Planet hunters started it and software DSPers stole it, ha ha.
You are claiming that we can, right now, detect DNA on a planet ten light years away, one hundred light years away? Seriously!I believe that we do and that we would........for the very fact that it would be a foreign configuration and not DNA based
Science is not in the business of proving things. Science is in the business of constructing models that explain observations.It can not be proven. I can not prove intelligent design, just like you or science can not prove natural design. If you can prove natural design, then please draw a picture of a proton, a neutron and an electron and show me how they are connected.
It is another guess and appears unrelated to your thesis, so why mention it.And as far as probability goes, how probable is it that an alien life will be more advanced? That means RF emission. If there is alien life, will would probably detect the advanced life before the primordial. Just another guess.
Exoplanet evolution: Astronomers expand cosmic 'cheat sheet'Please provide evidence, preferably (as above), that we currently have the technology to detect the spectra of such life. (Helpful hint: we don't.)Mule Train said:Even if the alien life were just primordial, it should be common, and we would see spectra of it.
We do not have the technology to detect such life. Good luck trying to demonstrate that we do. Better yet, just accept that this is not currently a possibility,
...
Because that is all that we currently have the technology to detect. Again, if you think you can demonstrate that we can, then demonstrate it. I do mean demonstrate it, with appropriate references, not unsubstantiated assertions.
...For the last half-billion years – roughly 10% our planet's lifetime – chlorophyll, present in many familiar forms of plant life such as leaves and lichen, has been the key component in Earth's biosignature. But other flora, such as cyanobacteria and algae, are much older than land-based vegetation, but their chlorophyll-containing structures leave their own telltale signs on a planet's surface.
"Scientists can observe surface biosignatures beyond vegetation on Earth-like exoplanets by using our own planet as the key for what to look for," O'Malley-James said.
"When we discover an exoplanet, this research gives us a much wider range to look back in time," Kaltenegger said. "We extend the time that we can find surface biota from 500 million years (widespread land vegetation) to about 1 billion years ago with lichen and up to 2 or 3 billion years ago with cyanobacteria."
The system produces images in ultra-high clarity, and it can detect terahertz waves across a broad spectral range—an improvement of at least 10 times more than current technologies that only detect such waves in a narrow spectral range. Its broad range capabilities could allow it to do observations that currently require several different instruments. It identifies what elements and molecules—for example, water, oxygen, carbon monoxide and other organic molecules, are present in those regions of space by seeing if their individual telltale spectral signatures are present.
Yes!On the subject of Drake's equation it does not take into consideration the age of the Universe or a time frame for the evolution of intelligent life.
Since we are the only known intelligent(?) life form in the Universe we can only make speculations on a sample size of one.
It took 4.5 billion years for an intelligent(?) life form to evolve in a Universe that is 13.8 billion years old.
Given that there have been a few pitfalls along the way such as the Permian or Cretaceous mass extinctions, it could be that 4.5 billion years is a statistical outlier and the evolution of intelligent life forms might take longer than the age of the Universe itself in which case intelligent life might be extremely rare.
Certainly is!sjastro said:Once again let me emphasise this is all speculation.
It took 3.7 or more billion years for an intelligent life to evolve on Earth.It took 4.5 billion years for an intelligent(?) life form to evolve in a Universe that is 13.8 billion years old.
We know for a fact it doesn't take longer than the age of the universe itself to evolve intelligent life.it could be that 4.5 billion years is a statistical outlier and the evolution of intelligent life forms might take longer than the age of the Universe itself in which case intelligent life might be extremely rare.
Once again let me emphasise this is all speculation.
So let me rephrase this (to simplify) .. the underlined part above is a hypothetical, therefore you're asking:... If intelligent life is out there at a specific place in the universe and for a specific short time frame (lets say 1,000 years) what are the chances that people on Earth will discover it in our life times when we are capable of discovering that (i.e. we have capable technology)
.. (and we could be the statistical outlier case).stevil said:We know for a fact it doesn't take longer than the age of the universe itself to evolve intelligent life.
Because we are here.
Pardon me Ophiolite. There seems to be some confusion. I went back and read our posts. I did not make any assumptions or use the Drake equation for my premise.
The only evidence to promote a view about it.....is the spectra. That spectra does not require that the alien life have transmitters. Or walk.
DSP(digital signal processing) has evolved into it's own science. It's quite amazing. With the DSP and fast hardware, it could be mistaken for magic.
For example, I read an article where they had plotted the directions of the superposition of shadows. Think that one over. A surveillance technique for looking in the angle of the dark. Exciting times for a young fella.
The point is, we would notice any spectra change, quickly with the software.
In the future, there might be a way to put a distance or length stamp, or even a time stamp on a ray of light. Faster switches will reveal more secrets.
A length stamp would be nice. What would science think if in all the star light, no ray was more than a billion miles long? It would make a good mystery movie.
I don't believe in randomness or probability, but science insists on it. It's roots are probably in the use of averages. First as a range description, later as a physical property. I believe it only to be apparent. A mirage. But man loves a chance. Chance is explanation B.
The chances are dependant on the size of the universe and the age of the universe.So let me rephrase this (to simplify) .. the underlined part above is a hypothetical, therefore you're asking:
'If {hypothetical scenario} what are the chances ..(etc)'
'The chances' are totally dependent on the hypothetical .. therefore 'the chances' are no different from the hypothetical's.
If there is confusion it was generated by this seemingly unequivocal statement by you, in your first post:Pardon me Ophiolite. There seems to be some confusion. I went back and read our posts. I did not make any assumptions or use the Drake equation for my premise.
That was an integral part of your concise thesis.According to mathematical probability, many civilizations should have come and gone.
Our respective points are talking past eachother.The chances are dependant on the size of the universe and the age of the universe.
We can only see but a very small fraction of the universe, that which we call the observable universe.
If we look too far even within our observable universe then we are seeing the early universe, which is back to a time before evolution could have even developed intelligent life.
Also if we (humanity) have only been looking for 62 years of the 14 billion years
that is 0.0000000443% of all time, and only of a very small percentage of space (observable universe vs the whole universe).
It would be ridiculous for us to view such a small part of existence and say since we haven't seen other life then there mustn't be life anywhere else or any-when else in the universe.
The DE is a discussion guide only. There is no objective evidence that its terms necessarily apply, (ie: are true), outside the context of Earth's life. In fact, one can go on adding or modifying the terms at a whim, ad nauseum, in order to produce the outcome one believes is true... It implicitly invokes the Drake equation.