https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3d/ea...ea16773516.jpg


:1orglaugh

There are over 7 billion people on earth, are you saying I'm the only one? Next are you going to argue there is only one earth even though there are over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the observable universe?

Weak. Although it's better than your first star answer. Well, maybe not.

:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I see you dodged the fact you can't reply to the scientific conclusions I've provided.

but that's to be expected, you're the guy who thinks everything in the Universe was created simultaneously. :1orglaugh

I can't imagine any sense in all the bullshit we talk and do.

what's weird is if you knew wtf you're talking about, you'd post supporting evidence that there is not 1 of anything in the Universe and there never has been. you don't and you can't because that's bullshit.

The dipshit posts there is scientific proof we are alone, tells others they don't know wtf they are talking about.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

wow, calling me names over a fun thread on the 4th of july. we're all glad there's only 1 of you.

Your next threads title should read

scientific proof: I am alone in my Universe.

For the sake of stats we're all unique . . .

you're a hateful guy.

that has nothing to do with me and my fun thread about being alone in the Universe.

>>Jupiter has no civilization; unless those exoplanets are shielding an earth type planet, this point stands

>>Yes. Rare means circa 1 / 100. The best scientists have been searching for exoplanets for decades - out of 400 billion stars in our galaxy they have not found anywhere close to 4 billion exoplanets, nor will they. Perhaps I should change that to Very Rare.

>>True, but we can extrapolate from the planets we see, such as Venus, that stability is somewhat rare.

>>Well, we can, again from those planets around us, and from calculating the possibility of such an evolution. Do you think the development of multicellular creatures is more than 1 / 1000 likely? If so, what do you present as justification for such a conclusion?

>>It makes quite a difference. Our moon creates a stable but constant gentle fluctuation in Earth's ecotsystems, rewarding, much as the tilted axis does, steady evolution. Two, or multiple moons would cause too much chaos and more "luck" than darwinian selection.

>>True, but since more many more stars exist in denser areas, the possibility of negative interaction increases. Our location decreases those chances.

What I think you're failing to realize is how odds are calculated. For instance, one does not need to role every possible combination of six dice personally to be able to calculate the odds of six sixes. These are very rough calculations, where I have assigned Rare a value of 1/100 and Very Rare a value of 1/1000. Of course these aren't proof or even solid science, merely a way to demonstrate that it isn't difficult to validate the claim that we could be alone in the observable universe, a conclusion well attested in the scientific community.

Thanks man!

you mean on the material level... but our world consists of way more than that
Me and some psychnoaut friends, we already managed to maintain decent telephatic communication like 10 years ago, taking serious amounts of different psychedelic drugs... we straight taught poems to each other without saying a word... human mind has unthinkable amount of power which is really "shielded" in this dark age we live in... do you really think eversince human kind live on this planet we always just used 10% of our minds? lol

im telling you there is something. i have seen it myself! phoenix lights it was some kind of ship! the military would not even go near it! also i was driving and i see this silver thing with like a small trail it was leaving then it just hit a speed that was tripping me out then it vanished. it was i meet blink of an eye fast shit.

If you think telepathy is fun you should give telekinesis a go.
When you have that down, give teleportation a shot.
As for the ridiculous notion that we are alone in the universe...

you ever see flight of the navigator? the one i saw was in the shape of a sunflower seed. the saucer shit is bullshit! :1orglaugh come to think of it the phoenix lights one was a huge version of what i described possibly equivalent to a warship.

Agreed. I have personally seen this type of formation:

https://i.imgur.com/VjUthi6.jpg

Agreed! :thumbsup

"There is no dark side of the moon.
As a matter of fact it's all dark."

- Pink Floyd, 1973

:rasta

How can the "Drake Equation" be solved when most of the parameters are unknown?

N could be 0 or it could be 100 trillion. All that's really understood is the Universe is really big and the more we look at it.. we realise its bigger than really big, based on light speed to us we only see like a speak of sand at the beach.

that's actually the conclusion of the research, the more they plugged in more reasonable distributions of uncertainty, the more the equation proves we are alone.

but the Universe is really big so of course there is intelligent life somewhere else isn't proven either, in fact, all the attempts to prove that have been futile. + the Gaian Bottleneck reveals how difficult and time consuming it is for life to reach intelligence stage. Life will go extinct first, usually, it shows.

Australian researchers discovered the Gaian bottleneck btw,

Life on other planets would likely be brief and become extinct very quickly, say astrobiologists from The Australian National University (ANU).


In research aiming to understand how life might develop, the scientists realised new life would commonly die out due to runaway heating or cooling on their fledgling planets.

"The universe is probably filled with habitable planets, so many scientists think it should be teeming with aliens," said Dr Aditya Chopra from the ANU Research School of Earth Sciences and lead author on the paper, which is published in Astrobiology.

"Early life is fragile, so we believe it rarely evolves quickly enough to survive."

"Most early planetary environments are unstable. To produce a habitable planet, life forms need to regulate greenhouse gases such as water and carbon dioxide to keep surface temperatures stable."

About four billion years ago Earth, Venus and Mars may have all been habitable. However, a billion years or so after formation, Venus turned into a hothouse and Mars froze into an icebox.

Early microbial life on Venus and Mars, if there was any, failed to stabilise the rapidly changing environment, said co-author Associate Professor Charley Lineweaver from the ANU Planetary Science Institute.

"Life on Earth probably played a leading role in stabilising the planet's climate," he said.

Dr Chopra said their theory solved a puzzle.

"The mystery of why we haven't yet found signs of aliens may have less to do with the likelihood of the origin of life or intelligence and have more to do with the rarity of the rapid emergence of biological regulation of feedback cycles on planetary surfaces," he said.

Wet, rocky planets, with the ingredients and energy sources required for life seem to be ubiquitous, however, as physicist Enrico Fermi pointed out in 1950, no signs of surviving extra-terrestrial life have been found.

A plausible solution to Fermi's paradox, say the researchers, is near universal early extinction, which they have named the Gaian Bottleneck.

"One intriguing prediction of the Gaian Bottleneck model is that the vast majority of fossils in the universe will be from extinct microbial life, not from multicellular species such as dinosaurs or humanoids that take billions of years to evolve," said Associate Professor Lineweaver.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

they forget one important thing most planets have huge chunks missing where asteroid's have hit them blowing what ever was on the surface into space. If life is common which I believe it is, then asteroids carrying life forming bacteria or what ever is too, its just there's a trillion to one chance you can go from snot to monkey.... there's a lot more than a trillion planet's in our solar system.

I believe this is why life is so diverse on Earth, astroids bring different kinds of life over millions of years.

A praying mantice lives on the same planet as a flying Fox bat. Too diverse to be "naturally" occurring with asteroids or genetic engineering :1orglaugh

If intelligent life is so common, then there should have been evidence of it suggesting/showing/proving so.

There is none at all. That's fermis paradox. Drake's equation was supposed to support that view of so common, but researchers proved the better the data is the more it reveals how uncommon life is. The gaian bottleneck is just part of the explanation.

actually, if you read their research document, most of it is based on impact extinctions.

they disprove your view.

Homepage of Aditya Chopra

I didn't say intelligent life was common, only snot.

And in the size of the universe, despite all our "intelligence" we still only see that grain of sand.

No worries, the thread is about intelligent life using math and science to see beyond that grain of sand to determine we are alone in the Universe.

Highly doubtful we'd be able to see beyond that grain of sand in the next 10,000 years and even then it requires breaking most physics laws we now know exist. As for the math.. well its a load of baloney but good reading.

The thing that will flip everything on its head, and unfortunately we'll be dead but its coming is quantum superposition and entanglement then "if" we can manipulate it and then again how far we can take it. Think neutrinos not even photons, that's where it gets cool cos they're already going faster than the speed of light.

Maybe we'll be able to communicate with ourselves in the future, HIGHLY likely!

Maybe we'll be able send neutrino sized particles to build machines that can communicate back to us.. from anywhere.

I'm sure we'll explore the far reaches of our galaxy, but its our technology that will be doing the exploring not us.

I'm 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% confident you didn't disprove the math. feel free to prove me wrong by providing your calculations.

LOOK at the equation.. Baloney+ baloney/ baloney

The Drake Equation is:
N = R * fp * ne * fl * fi * fc * L

where:
N = The number of broadcasting civilizations.
R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy
fp = Fraction of stars that form planets
ne = Average number of habitable planets per star
fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges
fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves
fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication
L = Years a civilization remains detectable

or..

Not Known = The number of broadcasting civilizations.
Not Known = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy
Not Known = Fraction of stars that form planets
Not Known = Average number of habitable planets per star
Not Known = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges
Not Known = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves
Not Known = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication
Not Known = Years a civilization remains detectable


And anything we think we may know, is based on our limited observations.. of our grain of sand. So the whole math is based on "not knowns" and guesses... baloney.

Jesus fucking Christ you continue to impress daily! :thumbsup

Not only we are not alone but we have been visited for a long time.

Prior to December 2017 we had many credible whistleblowers telling us about it like Gordon Cooper, Paul Hellyer, Edgar Mitchell, Philip Corso, Robert Bigelow, and so on.

But since December 2017, it is our own government, via the MOD that is releasing the info via mainstream news confirming this is real and being studied.

So anyone still thinking we are alone in the universe is a retard!


See video from this article:

https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/i-t...nts/1187688105

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

not sure who you're trying to fool but you completely left out any math.

Did you not take statistics in school? the paper reveals that there is proper math that can account for uncertainty and they apply it. It's called statistical analysis.

the scientists behind the research write about this in the paper I linked, perhaps you should try and read it prior to thinking you're capable of discounting it.


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

it's absolutely nutty that you're exclaiming math can't be applied to phenomenon we have limited observation of.

just wow.

We don't have the data to use the equation, assigning any numbers to the variables at this point in time is pure fantasy and guesstimates. What throws the math out, (in its pure form anyways) is most of the probabilities are totally speculative, and guessing probabilities is not math.. its baloney.

The point of the equation is not to produce a useful value.

The point is to show how much we don't know

Also.. sheer number of planets provides no guarantee of anything no matter how you spin it.

if you can't disprove the math, then you need to shutup about the math. you should especially pipe down because you didn't even read the research study that fully explains how the math was applied. they didn't use data points, which you're still clinging to in a desperate attempt to declare the math is invalid while being incapable of providing any math of your own.