Well, this is wild.

[wilson]

Former astronaut and doctor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Edgar Mitchell, co-holder of the record for longest space walk, claims that aliens are real and our governments have systematically covered them up for 60 years:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...-13762,00.html

[Fish80]

It is wild. Now I too believe.

I wonder what the aliens are doing when they visit? Are all the aliens from the same "place" or are there several distinct groups of aliens?

Didn't Carl Sagan estimate that there are 6 million advanced technical civilizations in the universe?

[wilson]

I count myself among the people who think that, as big as the universe is, there's just about gotta be something else somewhere else out there. I'm often reminded of the (great) line from Contact where Matthew McConaughey says that if there isn't anything else out there, "it'd be an awful waste of space."

With regard to this revelation, whether or not I should, I rather think that Dr. Mitchell has a reputation to uphold and has some interest in not tarnishing NASA's rep with crackpot BS. I'm certainly more inclined to believe him than most of the conspiracy-theory webmasters out there. To be fair, however, I should say that on some level(s), I'd really sort of like to believe in extraterrestrial life.

[2535Miles]

I count myself among the people who think that, as big as the universe is, there's just about gotta be something else somewhere else out there. I'm often reminded of the (great) line from Contact where Matthew McConaughey says that if there isn't anything else out there, "it'd be an awful waste of space."

I find myself having this argument with myself all of the time and still haven't been able to decide where I stand. One half of me romanticizes the ideas of extra terrestrial life and I desperately want there to be other intelligent life in the universe. The other half of me sees the expanding universe not as evidence to support the likelihood of other life (as we know it) existing, but as evidence for why is probably doesn't exist.

If you exclude Creation as a source of life, and only consider the extremely complicated conditions under which life has flourished on Earth, I feel like it's highly unlikely for intelligent life to exist elsewhere. Think of what it took for Earth's creation, timing, gravity, matter, position, distance to the sun, etc. Now think of what it took for US to get where we are today. It's almost impossible to fathom all of these conditions existing elsewhere.

Earth was created under the perfect storm of cosmological events. I want it to happen elsewhere, but don't think it has.

[DukePA]

It makes sense to me that there could be other life forms somewhere in the universe, but then again, why don't we have concrete evidence if there is? I've also daydreamed that we would learn of the existence of aliens which would then unite the people of the world. It would be great to have our conflicts and differences suddenly become petty. I just don't want to be eaten by a big slimey, scaley space creature!

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

I find myself having this argument with myself all of the time and still haven't been able to decide where I stand. One half of me romanticizes the ideas of extra terrestrial life and I desperately want there to be other intelligent life in the universe. The other half of me sees the expanding universe not as evidence to support the likelihood of other life (as we know it) existing, but as evidence for why is probably doesn't exist.

If you exclude Creation as a source of life, and only consider the extremely complicated conditions under which life has flourished on Earth, I feel like it's highly unlikely for intelligent life to exist elsewhere. Think of what it took for Earth's creation, timing, gravity, matter, position, distance to the sun, etc. Now think of what it took for US to get where we are today. It's almost impossible to fathom all of these conditions existing elsewhere.

Earth was created under the perfect storm of cosmological events. I want it to happen elsewhere, but don't think it has.

Well if you are being serious and really think it would be beautiful in a way to think it is more likely there is other intelligent life out there... you should take comfort in knowing that even with all the little things it took create a haven for life on earth - with the amount of planets that are in our [viewable] universe - there is a great chance it has happened elsewhere.

Also you must remember that the smallest forms of life can withstand extreme conditions. If you think evolution is the most likely reason for our existence, then you must realize that life adapted to Earth's current conditions. Life could very well evolve under different conditions.

These two videos will really, really make you think. They are both pretty short - but you'll be blown away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77N7KHkddT0

Zooming out from our Sun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

Hubble Space telescope. The single most important image ever taken. Staring into a dark spot in the sky where it appears there was nothing.



finally... Look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation


I think its borderline absurd to think we are alone even in our galaxy. Let alone the universe.

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

It makes sense to me that there could be other life forms somewhere in the universe, but then again, why don't we have concrete evidence if there is? I've also daydreamed that we would learn of the existence of aliens which would then unite the people of the world. It would be great to have our conflicts and differences suddenly become petty. I just don't want to be eaten by a big slimey, scaley space creature!

We more than likely don't have concrete evidence because of the vastness of space. We currently can only detect planets that are much bigger than earth. As our technology improves - we might be able to have better luck. However, it will probably be many many lifetimes before we find anything of significance. I think its hard for us to grasp that. Everyone wants answers now.

[OldPhiKap]

If you exclude Creation as a source of life, and only consider the extremely complicated conditions under which life has flourished on Earth, I feel like it's highly unlikely for intelligent life to exist elsewhere. Think of what it took for Earth's creation, timing, gravity, matter, position, distance to the sun, etc. Now think of what it took for US to get where we are today. It's almost impossible to fathom all of these conditions existing elsewhere.

Earth was created under the perfect storm of cosmological events. I want it to happen elsewhere, but don't think it has.

Carl Sagan popularized the Drake Equation which attempted to take all of this into account. Even with all of the highly unlikely variables, the sheer number of other stars and planets point (according to Drake and Sagan) to a high probablility of life elsewhere:

The Drake Equation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Carl Sagan explaining it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ztl8CG3Sys



For me, it seems very likely that there is life elsewhere. It is also highly unlikely that they have visited us due to the sheer difficulty in locating us and traveling billions of light years for a visit.

[2535Miles]

you should take comfort in knowing that even with all the little things it took create a haven for life on earth - with the amount of planets that are in our [viewable] universe - there is a great chance it has happened elsewhere.

Evidence to support the claim?

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation[/url
I think its borderline absurd to think we are alone even in our galaxy. Let alone the universe.

I'll pass on borderline, and go ahead and say it's flat out absurd to quote the Drake Equation as proof there is intelligent life on other planets. The Drake Equation is based on speculative data and proves nothing.

Perhaps you missed my first statement: "I find myself having this argument with myself all of the time and still haven't been able to decide where I stand." Unfortunately your post has done nothing to sway my feelings in either direction. Still undecided.

[OldPhiKap]

The Drake Equation is based on speculative data and proves nothing.

You are correct that the Drake Equation is neither proof nor data. It is probablility based upon the best estimates available. The Drake Equation only gives you the best guess at the odds, not the result.

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

Evidence to support the claim?


I'll pass on borderline, and go ahead and say it's flat out absurd to quote the Drake Equation as proof there is intelligent life on other planets. The Drake Equation is based on speculative data and proves nothing.

Perhaps you missed my first statement: "I find myself having this argument with myself all of the time and still haven't been able to decide where I stand." Unfortunately your post has done nothing to sway my feelings in either direction. Still undecided.

1) I in no way quoted the Drake equation, and I did not say it was proving anything.

2) There is no "Proof" there is life on other planets. It's all a matter of whats most likely. Even if you minimize some of the factors of the drake equation, it still seems likely. If your looking for proof, you won't find it on either side. The Drake Equation has to be speculative because of a number of obvious reasons. However, it is logical in theory.

3) What did you think of the videos - I'm assuming you replied without watching.

[2535Miles]

1) I in no way quoted the Drake equation, and I did not say it was proving anything.

My apologies then. Perhaps I miss interpreted your mentioning of the Drake Equation immediately followed by the claim that it's borderline absurd to think we're alone in the universe.

3) What did you think of the videos - I'm assuming you replied without watching.

They were fantastic, and still leave me undecided.

[billybreen]

There was a great op-ed in the MIT Tech Review a few months back on the question of why we haven't discovered life (registration required). The author starts from the position that we haven't been visited by extraterrestrials. Given that, he hopes that we don't find evidence of life in the universe.

His thesis hinges on the belief that you can view the development of an interstellar civilization as passing through a series of probability barriers, events that must be successfully traversed for the development of the civilization to continue. This starts at the unicellular phase and goes all the way up through intelligent beings developing the engineering capacity necessary for interstellar travel.

At some point, one of these must act as a Great Filter keeping the _vast_ majority of such civilizations from developing. That filter may be behind us and may make it very unlikely that intelligent life will develop elsewhere or it may be ahead of us, suggesting perhaps that civilizations kill themselves off before going interstellar. If we see evidence of life (especially intelligent life) developing elsewhere, that makes it far more likely that the Great Filter is still in front of us, suggesting that we're statistically predisposed to kill ourselves off at some point in the future.

[Fish80]

You are correct that the Drake Equation is neither proof nor data. It is probability based upon the best estimates available. The Drake Equation only gives you the best guess at the odds, not the result.

" Using logic, you can only prove that which you already know. - author unknown

Proving the existence of aliens may be beyond our current capabilities. We don't even understand our own existence. It's all just perceptions and observations of potential states of matter.

"I don't see with my eyes, I perceive with my mind." - Gorillaz

[The Gordog]

There was a great op-ed in the MIT Tech Review a few months back on the question of why we haven't discovered life (registration required). The author starts from the position that we haven't been visited by extraterrestrials. Given that, he hopes that we don't find evidence of life in the universe.

His thesis hinges on the belief that you can view the development of an interstellar civilization as passing through a series of probability barriers, events that must be successfully traversed for the development of the civilization to continue. This starts at the unicellular phase and goes all the way up through intelligent beings developing the engineering capacity necessary for interstellar travel.

At some point, one of these must act as a Great Filter keeping the _vast_ majority of such civilizations from developing. That filter may be behind us and may make it very unlikely that intelligent life will develop elsewhere or it may be ahead of us, suggesting perhaps that civilizations kill themselves off before going interstellar. If we see evidence of life (especially intelligent life) developing elsewhere, that makes it far more likely that the Great Filter is still in front of us, suggesting that we're statistically predisposed to kill ourselves off at some point in the future.

I am confused. Why must there be some Great Filter? ANd why does our seeing evidence of intelligent life elsewhere indicate that the Great Filter is still ahead?

[billybreen]

I am confused. Why must there be some Great Filter? ANd why does our seeing evidence of intelligent life elsewhere indicate that the Great Filter is still ahead?

If we don't actually discover living extra terrestrials (or evidence of them through projects such as SETI), that suggests a Great Filter. Otherwise, we should assume that other civilizations such as ours would develop in the universe, and, projecting out 100 to 200 years, would have the capability to at least make themselves known throughout their light cone.

If we find evidence that intelligent life developed elsewhere but _current_ intelligent life either doesn't exist or is incredibly rare, that strongly suggests a Great Filter ahead of us since it would demonstrate that the Great Filter is unlikely to be behind us (that is, it would make it more likely that the development of intelligent life is fairly common but that it dies out at some point).

Not sure I agree with the article, but I thought it was interesting.

[Deslok]

Rather than the Drake equation(which, simply put, given the vast size of the universe, virtually any nonzero numerical data entered in implies a great probability of life), I prefer something from one of Asimov's stories(The End of Eternity IIRC), where it says something along the lines of "3 numbers make sense... 0,1, or virtually infinite" He's actually talking about something slightly different, but I think the case is basically the same. There was no chance of life happening and it didn't happen - ok toss that out the window... The odds of life happening were so remote that it took an incredible confluence of events(or supernatural intervention) for it to take place, but it just so happened to do so once. Or, it has some nonzero probability of happening, and given the 10^large power possible places for it to happen, it has happened 10^significant number of times.

I personally believe the latter is the case. But say it has happened a million times around the universe. The same vastness of space that increases the odds of it happening elsewhere decreases our chance of ever encountering it in any significant way. Are aliens going to travel 1,000,000 light years to get here, and then just do a couple of zig zags in the sky and head home? So I don't believe anyone has ever seen an actual alien.

[camion]

... So I don't believe anyone has ever seen an actual alien.