Extraterrestrial Sightings

**Willbacker** · 05-20-2021, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

Actually . . .

There are estimated to be 10^23 stars in the universe. If the average is 10 planets per star than there are 10^24 planets. That number seems ridiculously large. But what are the odds a planet would form which could host intelligent life? I have explored this and the answer might astonish you.

Also, the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The first generation of stars in the universe were almost exclusively hydrogen (the first matter was almost all H). Those stars are where heavier elements were formed, such as Helium, Lithium, etc. But it wasn't until the second generation of stars that formed from the remnants of those stars that even heavier elements like Carbon and Oxygen were made in large quantities. When those stars went nova third generation stars like our sun started to form with all of the elements we have in our periodic table were available. So it wasn't until 3rd generation solar systems like ours that the whole suite of elements was available. You would be hard pressed to get intelligent life without all of the elements.

Our sun is about 4.5 billion years old. This was at the beginning of third generation stars so there are not solar systems with all of the elements out there much older than ours. Life appeared on earth almost as soon as it cooled enough for the first simple life forms to exist. So our life sustaining solar system is about as old as any and life on this planet came along about as quickly as it possibly could.

Basically, there is little chance life evolved somewhere else that would be that much more advanced than us.

There are likely very, very few life sustainable planets in the universe, much less this galaxy (travel between galaxies even in science fiction isn't possible). I think it is damn near impossible this is intelligent life from a distant solar system.

There is talk of the black holes being portals. There is talk of alien habitation on the dark side of the moon. What does the folklore repesent? Could be dimensions. Tbf there is lot of unexplainable questions.

Maybe on June 25th we get some answers. Maybe....
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...bout-ufos.html

**jonboy79** · 05-20-2021, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Willbacker

There is talk of the black holes being portals. There is talk of alien habitation on the dark side of the moon. What does the folklore repesent? Could be dimensions. Tbf there is lot of unexplainable questions.

Maybe on June 25th we get some answers. Maybe....
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...bout-ufos.html

As much as 85% of the universe is classified as “dark matter” which “basically” means they don’t understand it as all known matter interacts with light. Every day we discover hundreds of new exo-planets and we can basically only find planets the size of Jupiter that orbit very closely to very small stars. And still yet, every year we still find life on places on Earth we never knew life could exist.

Life doesn’t have to conform to our understanding of what it requires to exist. The chances there is no additional life in the Universe is effectively zero. Divide anything by infinity and it approaches zero.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Terpsfan82** · 05-20-2021, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

Actually . . .

There are estimated to be 10^23 stars in the universe. If the average is 10 planets per star than there are 10^24 planets. That number seems ridiculously large. But what are the odds a planet would form which could host intelligent life? I have explored this and the answer might astonish you.

Also, the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The first generation of stars in the universe were almost exclusively hydrogen (the first matter was almost all H). Those stars are where heavier elements were formed, such as Helium, Lithium, etc. But it wasn't until the second generation of stars that formed from the remnants of those stars that even heavier elements like Carbon and Oxygen were made in large quantities. When those stars went nova third generation stars like our sun started to form with all of the elements we have in our periodic table were available. So it wasn't until 3rd generation solar systems like ours that the whole suite of elements was available. You would be hard pressed to get intelligent life without all of the elements.

Our sun is about 4.5 billion years old. This was at the beginning of third generation stars so there are not solar systems with all of the elements out there much older than ours. Life appeared on earth almost as soon as it cooled enough for the first simple life forms to exist. So our life sustaining solar system is about as old as any and life on this planet came along about as quickly as it possibly could.

Basically, there is little chance life evolved somewhere else that would be that much more advanced than us.

There are likely very, very few life sustainable planets in the universe, much less this galaxy (travel between galaxies even in science fiction isn't possible). I think it is damn near impossible this is intelligent life from a distant solar system.

Interesting stuff.

**bandc** · 05-20-2021, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

Actually . . .

There are estimated to be 10^23 stars in the universe. If the average is 10 planets per star than there are 10^24 planets. That number seems ridiculously large. But what are the odds a planet would form which could host intelligent life? I have explored this and the answer might astonish you.

Also, the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The first generation of stars in the universe were almost exclusively hydrogen (the first matter was almost all H). Those stars are where heavier elements were formed, such as Helium, Lithium, etc. But it wasn't until the second generation of stars that formed from the remnants of those stars that even heavier elements like Carbon and Oxygen were made in large quantities. When those stars went nova third generation stars like our sun started to form with all of the elements we have in our periodic table were available. So it wasn't until 3rd generation solar systems like ours that the whole suite of elements was available. You would be hard pressed to get intelligent life without all of the elements.

Our sun is about 4.5 billion years old. This was at the beginning of third generation stars so there are not solar systems with all of the elements out there much older than ours. Life appeared on earth almost as soon as it cooled enough for the first simple life forms to exist. So our life sustaining solar system is about as old as any and life on this planet came along about as quickly as it possibly could.

Basically, there is little chance life evolved somewhere else that would be that much more advanced than us.

There are likely very, very few life sustainable planets in the universe, much less this galaxy (travel between galaxies even in science fiction isn't possible). I think it is damn near impossible this is intelligent life from a distant solar system.

You are definitely way more well-versed in this topic than I, but for some reason, I still find what you wrote very hard to believe. However, I think that's just my imagination causing that. What you said makes sense.

**jonboy79** · 05-21-2021, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by bandc

You are definitely way more well-versed in this topic than I, but for some reason, I still find what you wrote very hard to believe. However, I think that's just my imagination causing that. What you said makes sense.

Greg has done a TON of research on this subject and we have had some conversations going back 10-15 years on this board. So I want this to come off in the most respectful manner possible. His math and research comes from the slant of someone that is a creationist and intending to disprove the chance of life elsewhere. In that regard he does a fantastic job. It is an entirely valid and well thought out manner of doing so, but it does come from a place of pigeon-holing life into a neat little box.
There does however also exist a group of scientists and mathematicians that simply feel that our knowledge and understanding of how things work is so limited that we are not yet qualified to discuss in those terms. So it is simply a matter of Hubris vs humility.

I believe you and I both fit into the second category, and there are plenty of legitimate scientists that also ascribe to that theory. Personally, I find the Hubris of today’s scientists insufferable. On a personal level that may not be the case, but at the institutional level as reported in the mass media, that is absolutely the case. Newton thought he had it all figured out until Einstein Proved he missed a major variable in his equations. I have no doubt that eventually someone will do the same for Einstein and it will again further our understanding of the Universe. The fact that the Micro and the Macro are currently incompatible simply means that we as of yet lack the understanding to tie them together.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**BustOfPallas** · 05-21-2021, 09:55 AM

Our planet has some special properties, like a magnetic field, that shields us from damaging solar winds and make it very suitable for life. A lot of things have to go right for a planet to sustain life such as ours.

**jonboy79** · 05-21-2021, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by BustOfPallas

Our planet has some special properties, like a magnetic field, that shields us from damaging solar winds and make it very suitable for life. A lot of things have to go right for a planet to sustain life such as ours.

Your last three words are the words I keep hanging on. Why limit ones thinking to such a vast degree?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**NCRAVEN** · 05-21-2021, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

Greg has done a TON of research on this subject and we have had some conversations going back 10-15 years on this board. So I want this to come off in the most respectful manner possible. His math and research comes from the slant of someone that is a creationist and intending to disprove the chance of life elsewhere. In that regard he does a fantastic job. It is an entirely valid and well thought out manner of doing so, but it does come from a place of pigeon-holing life into a neat little box.
There does however also exist a group of scientists and mathematicians that simply feel that our knowledge and understanding of how things work is so limited that we are not yet qualified to discuss in those terms. So it is simply a matter of Hubris vs humility.

I believe you and I both fit into the second category, and there are plenty of legitimate scientists that also ascribe to that theory. Personally, I find the Hubris of today’s scientists insufferable. On a personal level that may not be the case, but at the institutional level as reported in the mass media, that is absolutely the case. Newton thought he had it all figured out until Einstein Proved he missed a major variable in his equations. I have no doubt that eventually someone will do the same for Einstein and it will again further our understanding of the Universe. The fact that the Micro and the Macro are currently incompatible simply means that we as of yet lack the understanding to tie them together.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see how a creationist view limits life to only this planet.

I mean, one of the arguments for non-creationist view is that the random chance of life occurring at all is so rare were on the only (or one of the only) places it could happen.

If that's the case, wouldn't intelligent life elsewhere eliminate that and point to a creator?

**BustOfPallas** · 05-21-2021, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

Your last three words are the words I keep hanging on. Why limit ones thinking to such a vast degree?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm just saying there are some not so obvious properties our planet possesses that were they not present might mean the difference between us being a lifeless planet and one where just about every nook and cranny has something living in it.

You also have to realize what in insignificant amount of time we've been around and look at all the extinction events that have occurred on our planet. The odds of two similar civilizations existing simultaneously in time might be astronomically low. We could all perish by our own collective hand or die in an asteroid collision and we will have been a blip in the continuum of space time.

While we are at it, I don't think we really want to meet up with another civilization because I am of the school of thought of Stephen Hawking that believes might be like pond scum to them. Think on our own planet of what happens whenever land bridges are formed or human beings have been able to meet for the first time after just several thousands of years of separation.... it usually ends up with a mass extinction through disease or conquest. That's likely exactly what would happen and I'm guessing we would be the one's on the shit end of that stick.

**jonboy79** · 05-21-2021, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

I don't see how a creationist view limits life to only this planet.

I mean, one of the arguments for non-creationist view is that the random chance of life occurring at all is so rare were on the only (or one of the only) places it could happen.

If that's the case, wouldn't intelligent life elsewhere eliminate that and point to a creator?

Intelligent life elsewhere makes us less special, and earth less special instead of being created for one purpose.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**NCRAVEN** · 05-21-2021, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

Intelligent life elsewhere makes us less special, and earth less special instead of being created for one purpose.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't however make a creator less likely.

**bandc** · 05-21-2021, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

I don't see how a creationist view limits life to only this planet.

I mean, one of the arguments for non-creationist view is that the random chance of life occurring at all is so rare were on the only (or one of the only) places it could happen.

If that's the case, wouldn't intelligent life elsewhere eliminate that and point to a creator?

This is basically what I came to say. I am a creationist as well, and if anything it expands the realm of what I think is possible. It's interesting that it seems like it does the opposite for you, or maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying?

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk