Do you think....?

Question

There is other life out "there?" Meaning in outer space? Or do you really think we are the only ones here? I think there is ton's of other life out there.... possible even more advanced than us... but I don't think they are little green men who come to visit us. What do you think?

Answer 1

In 1961 there was a now renown conference held at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, West Virginia 3, to discuss the question of a 'search for extraterrestrial life' (SETI). That gathering brought together a worldwide array of prominent astronomers and 'exobiologists'. The conference set out with the intention of attempting to quantify, by theoretical means, the number of technically advanced extraterrestrial intelligence's within the galaxy. The solution was an equation, now known as the Green Bank equation, though also widely referred to as the 'Drake equation' after Frank Drake the astronomer who proposed the core of the expression. The equation seeks to quantify the number, N, of technical civilisations in the galaxy.


The equation has, N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L

R* = mean rate of star formation in the milky way, our local galaxy.

fp = the fraction of those stars which form planetary systems.

ne = the number of planets in those systems which are ecologically suitable for lifeforms to evolve.

fl = the number of those planets on which lifeforms actually develop.

fi = the number of those which evolve to an intelligent form.

fc = the number of advanced intelligent lifeforms which develop the capability of interstellar radio communication.

L = the lifetime of those advanced technically advanced civilisations.

Values for some of these parameters are, of course, open to considerable disagreement, something to which we shall return later, however a set of values is widely quoted. Most of these have not altered to any significant degree since that conference in 1961.

They are; R* = 10/yr, fp = 0.5, ne = 2, fl = 1, fi fc = 0.01, and L = 10.

The mean rate of star formation in the milky way, our local galaxy, and it's stellar population is well understood and this figure of 10 each year is widely held to be reasonable. The current theories of star formation accept the formation of an accompanying accretion ring which is expected to form the basis of planetary bodies. Although this is not universally accepted it has become possible in recent years to measure slight gravitational perturbations in the proper motion of stars. (Proper motion is the actual movement, of a star rather than it's apparent movement.) It has been found that a large proportion, around 50%, of the stars close enough to be subjected to this investigation have companion objects which affect their movement. These companions, which are too small or too dark to see, range from objects with mass a little smaller than Jupiter to a few tens that planet whose mass is 1.899 x 10^27 kg. Of course the most definite indication of the formation of planets is that of our own solar system with the nine planets and their satellites. Clearly the probable existence of objects affecting the movement of distant stars does not guarantee a viable ecology for life to exist, however the evidence does imply the possibility. In view of the limited observational data it seems reasonable to regard the solar system as a typical model, this suggests fpne equals one.

Still, this equation leaves enough room for literally thousands of planets which may potentially bear intelligent life "out there"

UFO's?? That's just a crock of horse manure.

Answer 2

we're not alone in the universe, but other "life" is so far away and the universe has existed for so long that the chance of other life being able to visit earth is extremely remote. as far as we know, the universe is billions of years old and other stars may have formed solar systems and suns long before ours and will do so after our sun has died (gone supernova and then collapsed) and earth no longer exists.

Star Trek and "warp speed" aside, there is no reason to think that the speed of light is not a universal "speed limit" that affects all forms of life, whether they consist of matter or energy

if the universe really exists in more than four dimensions (3 space and 1 time) it might be possible to move into a fifth dimension in one part of our universe and "pop out" in another, but as far as we know, that would violate the rule that neither matter nor information can move faster than the speed of light.

a matter-based lifeform should not be able to survive moving into a fifth dimension and an energy (or information)-based lifeform should not be able to remain coherent moving into a fifth dimension (the raw energy might be able to do so -- where do matter and light go at the "bottom" of a black hole -- but it shouldn't be able to remain coherent -- retaining the information that would mean it was "alive" -- crossing into the fifth dimension, or at least not remain coherent crossing back into the universe at a place that was too far away to reach at the speed of light during the time it was crossing.

hope this helps. It's probably wrong in some important respects, but it should give you a start. use google to get started on the rest.

good luck!

Answer 3

I'll make this short and sweet. Aside from the fact that I have personally seen many UFO's I can also say that the military does not keep me up to date on all of its top secret test vehicles. Disappearing helicopter I saw last year...but are people so arrogant that any of us can truly think that we are the only ones here. Just as the English and Spanish thought they were alone until 1492. Even if they are out there do you honestly think they would waste their time trying to talk to a very primitive violent culture that cannot take care of themselves or their own planet? Especially, if you consider the fact that they don't really want to catch anything from us such as greed, hostility, aids, political drive. LOL

Answer 4

A recent research group estimated the total number of stars in the observable universe to be 70-trillion. There's no doubt that a high percentage of these stars have planets, and that a vast number of those planets have conditions where some form of sentient life could arise and evolve.

Answer 5

Sure, there's something, if you go look long enough. It's a big enough universe that conditions must have been ripe for creation somewhere else. However, considering that our society has lasted maybe 10,000 years, and the universe is 15,000,000,000 years old, odds are that we won't ever find alien life that is at a similar stage of development to us. The alien life will either be microscopic slime, or they'll be so advanced, that we'll be like slime compared to them.

Answer 6

I dont know, I have thought of "just how big is the solar system?" Is there another solar system just like ours somewhere with another earth and humans. If so how advanced are they, are they smarter than us? What do their houses, vehicles, clothes, plants look like? I know quite a few people who have seen UFO's. My uncle just saw one last year in ohio, it was close to him on the highway. He slammed on the brakes, pulled off of the road and it was gone. He looked for other people on the highway to see if anyone else saw it but he was the only one on the road. I have had other relatives in ohio see UFO's while on the Ohio Turnpike years ago. My mother saw a huge bright light that looked like football stadium lights in the woods behind her house while she was showing my uncle where he could hunt for deer season. They were in the woods and they saw it coming over the ridge, my uncle asked what it was, mom said i dont know their arent any roads up here for any one to be here and she said it was dead silent. needless to say uncle was running and rolling down the mountain side with mom not far behind. I believe in UFO's but im not sure who is exactly driving them- aliens or is it something top secret?? like roswell incident? who knows, but i dont want to be one of those people that has had weird chips taken out of their body that came from them being abducted or whatever. not at all..

Answer 7

it truly is thoroughly unacceptable for each person to take performance improving drugs in a sport. imagine Roger Federer stoning as a lot as win his 17 grand slam titles, imagine Usain Bolt stoning as a lot as win the sprints. no longer purely did Lance Armstrong deceive the international yet he lied to his relations and himself. He has dishonored the game of cycling and in my view does no longer deserve any sympathy. for confident, he battled maximum cancers and he fought lengthy and hard yet you may want to imagine that can make him a more effective man or woman, yet no, he did not only cheat for one excursion de France win, he cheated for 7 and he also wasted regulation money, human beings's time and careers on attempting to tutor that he did not take drugs. there are such numerous different cyclists that would want to have deserved to be wearing that yellow jersey those 7 years that Lance Armstrong used Dope to get his thanks to the proper. it truly is a shame that such years are wasted of the sturdy sport of cycling and Lance Armstrong benefits alot more effective than what he's getting. he's a liar and a cheat and on the aired interview he did not even tutor significant signs and indicators of regret, sorrow or perhaps being apologetic. He changed into only a face for the digital camera, as if he needed to get it over and performed with. take a seem at different renowned events apologies and they are so a lot more effective heart felt and sorry, (case in point: Tiger Woods). Lance Armstrong, a bully, a cheat, a liar. No Sympathy deserved.

Answer 8

I think there is life out there.