Poll: After the china-incident do tou believe in aliens?

[ezeroast]

Yea i believe that life exists out there somewhere. But with the vast spaces between us and them makes me think its unlikely that we will ever run into each other. If they are anything like us they would probably destroy themselves before they create the technology to travel this far anyway.

 

[SultanP]

I believe in aliens after the China-incident.
I also believed in aliens before the China-incident.
I believe in aliens because in this immensely huge universe, I think that there just has to be life on some other planet.

 

[The Geek Lord]

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_fate.html

Assuming that the latest data on the NASA website is representative, well then sir, NASA would disagree with that statement.

The data says the universe may expand endlessly. I don't doubt this, however, constantly expanding and being infinite are different things.

It's like saying that every human who eats too much is fat beyond hope, even when they're clearly not. Humans can't get so incredibly fat that they have zero hope of reversing their weight. And besides, infinite isn't an actual number; correct me if I'm wrong, but the last I checked infinite is the theory that there is no limit to numbers, so there may not be a limit to how big the universe can grow, but it can't actually be infinite.

 

[Cocamaster]

One of the listed definitions for "outdated" is "obsolete"

One of the listed definitions for "flawed" is "a defect or shortcoming"

If you don't think being OBSOLETE is a freaking SHORTCOMING then that's your problem with the English language...

Oh.

My.

God... are you obtuse.

You really don't see the deductive fallacy present in your logic, do you? Try not to hang on the definitions next time; context plays a role, too.

And to answer your question, here's three:

The formula fails to consider the location of the stars that have planets within a galaxy.
The formula fails to consider atmosphere changes in the levels of hydrogen and oxygen, which would lead to the death of early life on a planet.
The formula fails to consider extinction level events like the late heavy bombardment after the formation of life.

 

[CincoDeMayo]

There is no way that aliens can't exist, because space is infinite. Multiply anything with infinity, and it becomes infinite.

How many planets have we found so far?

Outside of our Solar System, there are probably billions and billions. As of 13th May 2010, there are 453 known exoplanets.

1 planet with life among 453 known planets make a probability of 0.002% that there is life on the next planet, but multiply 0.002 with infinity, and the number of planets that have life becomes infinite.

This is the type of thing I was talking about.

1st) Space may be infinite, but the physical Universe is not. There is a limited amount of matter and energy, meaning a limited amount of stars, planets and other celestial bodies. There?s no ?multiplying to infinity?.

2nd) You are committing a fallacy with your math. You are making the assumption that just because we know of 453 planets other than Earth then 1 in 454 must sustain life. That?s wrong for 2 reasons: a) you don?t know if any of those planes is currently sustaining primordial life, and b) this doesn?t preclude more planets being discovered that cannot sustain life.

You can?t extrapolate the current statistic to the entire universe. That would be like saying that one person in every four in the world own a car, because one in four in Canada do.

It's just bad Science.

I can agree to a certain degree, but as far as 2) goes, I must disagree. The probability of known life on other planets will either increase or decrease when we find the next planet, and the planet after that, and the planet after that. I'm not a mathematician, but if the probability right now is 0.002% and we find another planet with or without life, the probability of the next planet containing life will either increase or decrease. It's basically a matter of relativity, we can't include the unknown into our variables and therefore we can't include the planets we haven't yet discovered. We're adding a new planet to our calculation, are we not?

If we only knew of Canada, the "world" would have one in four driving a car. It's a relative question. We know that there is a world outside of Canada (yes indeed!), and therefore the percentage of drivers in the world is increased or decreased, depending on what we know. If we did take the planets we haven't found into our calculation we're just replacing one assumption with another, aren't we? Using 0.002% is using what we know so far, that number will always change.

And of course I don't know if there's any kind of organisms on any of the planets we've discovered, there could be tons of them even on Europa for all we know, but until there's proof it can't really be taken into consideration.

But as I said, I'm not a mathematician, far from it, and if you correct me with a calculation or links or whatever I will not argue with you. Besides, I'm really, really tired right now so my brain is basically in power saving mode, I feel that I can't really express my thinking in the best of ways, so my apologies if I'm confusing or just sounds plain stupid.

 

[Cocamaster]

I can agree to a certain degree, but as far as 2) goes, I must disagree. The probability of known life on other planets will either increase or decrease when we find the next planet, and the planet after that, and the planet after that. I'm not a mathematician, but if the probability right now is 0.002% and we find another planet with or without life, the probability of the next planet containing life will either increase or decrease. It's basically a matter of relativity, we can't include the unknown into our variables and therefore we can't include the planets we haven't yet discovered. We're adding a new planet to our calculation, are we not?

I don't think you're actually disagreeing with me.

What I meant is that it is bad form to make enouncements like ?0.002% of the entire universe?. (It?s actually 0.22%.)

It IS true, as you said, for the known Universe. But, as you said, this WILL change as more information becomes available.

I?m not criticizing your point, just the way it?s presented.

 

[Mr. Doe]

I hope there are sentient aliens or else space is gonna be really boring and these millenia of perfecting warfare will be useless.

 

[Ancientgamer]

Why don't you post which variable of Drake's equation is flawed then?

OT: I believe in aliens, I do not believe that thing was a UFO

I didn't say any particular part of it was "flawed". I said it was invented when we didn't know even half about life and it's development as we do now. If anything, it is missing many important variables that make the final estimate much, much smaller.

Drake's equation is built into small independent variables that are multiplied, I'm asking which variable value is flawed due to outdated knowledge.

I can't really accept it's flawed without being even a little more specific.

The problem is that the actual value for a large number of the variables in the drake equation are unknowable. Most of them were reached arbitrarily at the time, and we now know they'd be skewed much higher than was thought.

 

[Doclector]

Y'know, I'm no biologist, but when scientists say that there can't be life on a planet because there's not enough oxygen or that that there's no water, I can't help but think "so what?" I mean, sure, that's what life on earth needs, but what if there are alien life forms that have completely different requirements? Maybe even aliens that breathe carbon monoxide and find oxygen highly toxic? If anyone knows a reason why this cannot be, feel free to prove me wrong, but a far as I see, to put it in metaphorical terms, we keep playing a universal game with only the earth's rulebook.

 

[Danpascooch]

Why don't you post which variable of Drake's equation is flawed then?

OT: I believe in aliens, I do not believe that thing was a UFO

I didn't say any particular part of it was "flawed". I said it was invented when we didn't know even half about life and it's development as we do now. If anything, it is missing many important variables that make the final estimate much, much smaller.

Drake's equation is built into small independent variables that are multiplied, I'm asking which variable value is flawed due to outdated knowledge.

I can't really accept it's flawed without being even a little more specific.

The problem is that the actual value for a large number of the variables in the drake equation are unknowable. Most of them were reached arbitrarily at the time, and we now know they'd be skewed much higher than was thought.

Which and why?

 

[Danpascooch]

One of the listed definitions for "outdated" is "obsolete"

One of the listed definitions for "flawed" is "a defect or shortcoming"

If you don't think being OBSOLETE is a freaking SHORTCOMING then that's your problem with the English language...

Oh.

My.

God... are you obtuse.

You really don't see the deductive fallacy present in your logic, do you? Try not to hang on the definitions next time; context plays a role, too.

And to answer your question, here's three:

The formula fails to consider the location of the stars that have planets within a galaxy.
The formula fails to consider atmosphere changes in the levels of hydrogen and oxygen, which would lead to the death of early life on a planet.
The formula fails to consider extinction level events like the late heavy bombardment after the formation of life.

First of all, let me point out that you were the one who had the problem with the perfectly valid word of "flawed", I wouldn't accuse me of getting hung up on definitions, when you presented the original problem with the words.

Thank you for the specifics, finally.

 

[Ancientgamer]

Why don't you post which variable of Drake's equation is flawed then?

OT: I believe in aliens, I do not believe that thing was a UFO

I didn't say any particular part of it was "flawed". I said it was invented when we didn't know even half about life and it's development as we do now. If anything, it is missing many important variables that make the final estimate much, much smaller.

Drake's equation is built into small independent variables that are multiplied, I'm asking which variable value is flawed due to outdated knowledge.

I can't really accept it's flawed without being even a little more specific.

The problem is that the actual value for a large number of the variables in the drake equation are unknowable. Most of them were reached arbitrarily at the time, and we now know they'd be skewed much higher than was thought.

Which and why?

fl,fi,fc, and L in the drake equation are purely speculative. To get any actual results from the drake equation you need to plugin the average amount of planets with life supporting conditions that go on to develop life at some point, those that actually go on to develop intelligent life, the amount of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space, and the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space. None of these have any hard data to suggest values, and the Green Bank scientists choose some rather meaningless numbers to fill those values. Since we currently have zero degrees of freedom, we can make no reasonable estimates.

In other words, we would need to actually meet and study a large number of civilizations before we'd even have the raw data to make the drake equation worth while. It's more of a fanciful thought experiment than anything else. That's just the equation's own design faults mind you, there's a number of astronomical variables it doesn't accounts for as well.

 

[Fidelias]

Do I believe that there are aliens out there? Yes.
Do I believe that they have advanced technology? Maybe.
Do I believe that the so-called UFO sightings and abductions are true? Hell no.

If this is anything, it's some type of "secret" military prototype. It may be a conspiracy, but I doubt it's an alien conspiracy.

 

[zehydra]

You should reword your poll to: Do you believe aliens ARE AROUND US? as opposed to, Do you think they exist? There are plenty of reasons to believe that they may exist regardless of any evidence of their appearance on our planet.

 

[Burningsok]

The aliens that we might meet first could just be simple worm type creatures, if their are aliens out there that are intelligent like us, it will be a while before we see them. don't forget that from what our human race knows we are a unique solar system. From what we know we are the only solar system with 8 planets. Also the chances of a planet like ours near the sun at almost the exact same distance is very slim, but still possible. Also if the ratio with distance between the planets and the size of the sun. We have learned that living things such as bacteria can live in extreme conditions.

 

[CloggedDonkey]

I think that we aren't the only ones here in the entirety of space, Earth does have quite a few minerals that aren't in the Milky Way, so creatures from other planets might come here, but I have a fealing it isn't an alien. A UFO, yes, as that just means that the thing in the sky belongs to the country of "Fuck if we know".

 

[The Shade]

I'll say the same thing I have always said and always will say when people ask if I believe in aliens, by quoting the poster from Agent Mulder's wall. "I want to believe"

Agreed. I highly doubt that the UFO above the Chinese airport was an alien craft, though I admit it was certainly confusing as to what it might have been.

Still, I believe there are probably aliens out there somewhere. Who's to say that they're even space-fairing, though? Maybe it will be us visiting them someday in our flying saucers! Or, at the very least, mistakenly flying over there airports while trying to do recon on them.