60 Billion Reasons there is life in our Galaxy

[see4]

So, in the exponentially unlikely chance that the closest 'habitable' planet forster's life, and that life was intelligent, and they knew that earth existed, and they knew intelligent organisms were living here, and they actually wanted to visit us, and they have sophisticated long range space fairing vessels, and those vessels have incredibly fast methods for traveling space;

They'd still have to travel, 122,986,869,000,000 kms to get to us, or 13 light years. That's trillion btw, with a 'T'....

Also, if they have the ability to search for, and locate intelligent life and there really are 60 billion x 200 billion habitable planets, the chances of them picking earth is exponential unlikely as well.

I can reasonable believe beyond any doubt that intelligent life exists beyond our solar system. It's simply a statistical fact. And so far we have found several habitable planets orbiting a red dwarf in our galaxy, only a few light years away.

We have been emitting patterned radio waves since it's invention, and what's insane is that those radio waves we first emitted some 100 years ago, are now reaching some 70 light years away. If intelligent life were seeking out other life as we are, they may have responded. If so, we should have received a signal from them. (The one's with a 35 light year range, half the time to travel.)

The further the radio waves travel, the longer it is going to take for us to know. The only way we can find something in the vastness of space, is via some sort of signal beacon. Unnatural light emitting from a planet would be enough.

So for example, if earth were to build a massive light source and emit it to the moon, creating a continuous beam of light being reflected back and forth, life elsewhere may be able to see this light, decipher it is unnatural, and send us a signal.

I wish I pursued astronomy. That shit fascinates me.

 

[guy incognito]

I can reasonable believe beyond any doubt that intelligent life exists beyond our solar system. It's simply a statistical fact. And so far we have found several habitable planets orbiting a red dwarf in our galaxy, only a few light years away.

We have been emitting patterned radio waves since it's invention, and what's insane is that those radio waves we first emitted some 100 years ago, are now reaching some 70 light years away. If intelligent life were seeking out other life as we are, they may have responded. If so, we should have received a signal from them. (The one's with a 35 light year range, half the time to travel.)

The further the radio waves travel, the longer it is going to take for us to know. The only way we can find something in the vastness of space, is via some sort of signal beacon. Unnatural light emitting from a planet would be enough.

So for example, if earth were to build a massive light source and emit it to the moon, creating a continuous beam of light being reflected back and forth, life elsewhere may be able to see this light, decipher it is unnatural, and send us a signal.

I wish I pursued astronomy. That shit fascinates me.

I disagree. You have absolutely no statistical information on how likely life is to arise from non life. The fact that we are here only proves that the process happened 1 time, and does not imply whether it is likely to happen again or not.

The further the signal gets from earth the weaker it is. A civilization that is 70 light years from earth is on the edge of a light sphere with a radius of 70 light years. 70 light years = 4.11 x 10^14 miles. That is a lot of miles. The radio signal gets weaker as it gets further using the same equation as for light*. A signal at that distance would likely be undetectable.

*Just like when figuring light intensity for growing. 6" from the light will have a certain amount of lumens, move twice as far from the light (12") and you have a quarter of the intensity (amount of lumens). Move twice as far away again (24" total) and you will have a quarter the intensity that you had at 12", and a quarter of a quarter (or 1/16) the amount of lumens as at 6".

 

[guy incognito]

I can reasonable believe beyond any doubt that intelligent life exists beyond our solar system. It's simply a statistical fact. And so far we have found several habitable planets orbiting a red dwarf in our galaxy, only a few light years away.

We have been emitting patterned radio waves since it's invention, and what's insane is that those radio waves we first emitted some 100 years ago, are now reaching some 70 light years away. If intelligent life were seeking out other life as we are, they may have responded. If so, we should have received a signal from them. (The one's with a 35 light year range, half the time to travel.)

The further the radio waves travel, the longer it is going to take for us to know. The only way we can find something in the vastness of space, is via some sort of signal beacon. Unnatural light emitting from a planet would be enough.

So for example, if earth were to build a massive light source and emit it to the moon, creating a continuous beam of light being reflected back and forth, life elsewhere may be able to see this light, decipher it is unnatural, and send us a signal.

I wish I pursued astronomy. That shit fascinates me.

I also disagree about anyone being able to detect light between the earth and moon. Anyone close enough to detect that is close enough to detect us by other means. Anyone at a great distance is going to see that light from essentially the same spot as the sun. I think the sun would quite literally dwarf any light signal we could generate, even in theory.

 

[see4]

I disagree. You have absolutely no statistical information on how likely life is to arise from non life. The fact that we are here only proves that the process happened 1 time, and does not imply whether it is likely to happen again or not.

You are correct, I have no statistical information to prove that life exists. Just as we have no statistical information that the big bang occurred. But based on mathematical probability (statistics), we derive a conclusion that leads us to believe that both the big bang occurred and that life (not necessarily intelligent life) exists.

The further the signal gets from earth the weaker it is. A civilization that is 70 light years from earth is on the edge of a light sphere with a radius of 70 light years. 70 light years = 4.11 x 10^14 miles. That is a lot of miles. The radio signal gets weaker as it gets further using the same equation as for light*. A signal at that distance would likely be undetectable.

No. In the vacuum of space, waves, be it light or radio or x-ray do not get weaker. A weaker signal, or wave, is caused by the deterioration of the amplitude of the wave, caused by friction. Since you do not have friction in space, you do not have a deterioration of amplitude of waves.

*Just like when figuring light intensity for growing. 6" from the light will have a certain amount of lumens, move twice as far from the light (12") and you have a quarter of the intensity (amount of lumens). Move twice as far away again (24" total) and you will have a quarter the intensity that you had at 12", and a quarter of a quarter (or 1/16) the amount of lumens as at 6".

Gravity and magnetic forces play a huge role in that. Again, in the vacuum of space, you do not contend with gravity or magnetic forces. Unless of course the signal (wave) is directional to a hard surface space object.

 

[see4]

I also disagree about anyone being able to detect light between the earth and moon. Anyone close enough to detect that is close enough to detect us by other means. Anyone at a great distance is going to see that light from essentially the same spot as the sun. I think the sun would quite literally dwarf any light signal we could generate, even in theory.

I was going to point out in my theory that the light emitted from earth would need to be strong enough to vary from that of the light emitted from the sun. So at least you are thinking on the same lines as I am. But I disagree that it could not be perceived as an unnatural anomaly if detected. And remember, all that you need to do is create a pattern and make different than its surrounding celestial bodies.

 

[guy incognito]

You are correct, I have no statistical information to prove that life exists. Just as we have no statistical information that the big bang occurred. But based on mathematical probability (statistics), we derive a conclusion that leads us to believe that both the big bang occurred and that life (not necessarily intelligent life) exists.

But what is leading you to believe that certain conditions will spontaneously create life? We have a sample size of 1. We know that life spontaneously created 1 time - earth. Beyond that we have never found another place that has life of any kind (not just intelligent), nor are we able to create it in the lab under ideal conditions. Nor have we ever discovered any life on earth that doesn't have a common ancestor, suggesting that even if it did happen multiple times on earth, all but 1 of those instances didn't last. If the statistical odds of life arising, even in perfect conditions, is close enough to zero then there will be no other life in the universe regardless of how many planets there are.

No. In the vacuum of space, waves, be it light or radio or x-ray do not get weaker. A weaker signal, or wave, is caused by the deterioration of the amplitude of the wave, caused by friction. Since you do not have friction in space, you do not have a deterioration of amplitude of waves.

I think you misunderstood my statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Radiation follows the inverse square law. The intensity of the signal will be reduced, practically to zero at 70 light years.

Gravity and magnetic forces play a huge role in that. Again, in the vacuum of space, you do not contend with gravity or magnetic forces. Unless of course the signal (wave) is directional to a hard surface space object.

No, gravity and magnetic forces have nothing to do with that. It is strictly a consequence of the inverse square law.

 

[guy incognito]

I was going to point out in my theory that the light emitted from earth would need to be strong enough to vary from that of the light emitted from the sun. So at least you are thinking on the same lines as I am. But I disagree that it could not be perceived as an unnatural anomaly if detected. And remember, all that you need to do is create a pattern and make different than its surrounding celestial bodies.

It would be like you standing inside a jet engine and turning your ipod on and seeing if anyone could detect the unnatural sound of eminem. All they are going to hear is the jet engine.

The entire worlds power consumption for 2010 was 5.0x10[SUP]20 [/SUP]J. The sun outputs 3.8×10[SUP]26[/SUP] J each second. Think about that. The sun is outputting almost a million times more energy per second than the entire world uses in a year. You would have to choose a spectrum (ie nothing visible) that the sun is completely devoid of, and it would require a lot of energy, and you would ideally focus it like a laser. But if you don't know where you are sending the signal and just send it out in all directions you really can't focus it at all.

 

[LightTheBeast]

Any alien that thinks of visiting us will see us wanting to meet them but not knowing what we will do with them, sorry to say they will not visit.

 

[see4]

But what is leading you to believe that certain conditions will spontaneously create life? We have a sample size of 1. We know that life spontaneously created 1 time - earth. Beyond that we have never found another place that has life of any kind (not just intelligent), nor are we able to create it in the lab under ideal conditions. Nor have we ever discovered any life on earth that doesn't have a common ancestor, suggesting that even if it did happen multiple times on earth, all but 1 of those instances didn't last. If the statistical odds of life arising, even in perfect conditions, is close enough to zero then there will be no other life in the universe regardless of how many planets there are.

You have convinced me that life only exists on Earth. Good job.

 

[see4]

It would be like you standing inside a jet engine and turning your ipod on and seeing if anyone could detect the unnatural sound of eminem. All they are going to hear is the jet engine.

The entire worlds power consumption for 2010 was 5.0x10[SUP]20 [/SUP]J. The sun outputs 3.8×10[SUP]26[/SUP] J each second. Think about that. The sun is outputting almost a million times more energy per second than the entire world uses in a year. You would have to choose a spectrum (ie nothing visible) that the sun is completely devoid of, and it would require a lot of energy, and you would ideally focus it like a laser. But if you don't know where you are sending the signal and just send it out in all directions you really can't focus it at all.

[video=youtube;Upt7ZTvcriY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upt7ZTvcriY[/video]

Just because the coyote can't figure out how to work the rocket, doesn't mean the rocket doesn't exist.

 

[see4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Radiation follows the inverse square law. The intensity of the signal will be reduced, practically to zero at 70 light years.

I think you misunderstand the law. Taking your understanding into account, we theoretically should not be able to see beyond 70 light years away. Light, being radiation, would be reduced to 0 based on your account. And we know this is not the case.

Back to the drawing board I suppose.

 

[MojoRison]

Why argue when we can just bask in it's beauty

 

[guy incognito]

I think you misunderstand the law. Taking your understanding into account, we theoretically should not be able to see beyond 70 light years away. Light, being radiation, would be reduced to 0 based on your account. And we know this is not the case.

Back to the drawing board I suppose.

No I understand the law, but i'm not sure you do. I'm saying that from 70 light years away you will not see the tv glow of an intelligent species. You will however see a fucking star because it emits energy on a scale many many orders of magnitude larger.

 

[guy incognito]

You have convinced me that life only exists on Earth. Good job.

That is not my intention. I think there probably is life out there. Probably intelligent life. I don't think you can say it's a "statistical fact" though, because honestly the only evidence for life so far seems to be on earth.

 

[joe macclennan]

I'm saying that from 70 light years away you will not see the tv glow of an intelligent species. .

You have obviously never seen MY tv.

 

[hzbodin]

Nice debate there fellas. but im gonna say we have been contacted by extraterrestrial life and we have contacted them. that's all im gonna say.

 

[guy incognito]

You have obviously never seen MY tv.

[video=youtube;WBF5bewa0ts]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBF5bewa0ts[/video]

 

[guy incognito]

Nice debate there fellas. but im gonna say we have been contacted by extraterrestrial life and we have contacted them. that's all im gonna say.

 

[see4]

No I understand the law, but i'm not sure you do. I'm saying that from 70 light years away you will not see the tv glow of an intelligent species. You will however see a fucking star because it emits energy on a scale many many orders of magnitude larger.

Your logic is flawed. A light wave is a light wave is a light wave. No matter how large the source. Based on your logic, you say that radiation deteriorates to the point of zero. Meaning, the wave of light, even when unobstructed will eventually vanish. This is simply not true. And a simple example can show that. Scientists can view the radiation from from about 14.3 billion years ago. Then, based on your understanding of inverse law, we should not be able to see that, or any other radiation beyond 70 light years away. ( I realize you are using 70 light years as an example, and this is not the finite number )

 

[MojoRison]

I find it mind boggling that the images of what we see today are but a glimpse, not of what is but of what once was.