We will start with a very simple assumption. The galaxy as we see it is the most probable way for us to see it. And from this assumption we will recover that aliens (other advanced technological species) do not currently exist in our galaxy and will never exist.
To start off with, how long does it take for an intelligent species to rise and colonize the entire galaxy? It takes roughly 100,000 years. Because the galaxy is 100,000 light-years in diameter and civilization arose on Earth a mere 10,000 years ago. Even under the most pessimistic assumptions, within 100,000 years of its rise, an intelligent technological species will have colonized half of the galaxy.
How many opportunities have there been in our galaxy for an intelligent species to rise and colonize the galaxy? In the last 65 million years alone, since the extinction of the dinosaurs, there have been 650 chunks of 100,000 years during which a civilization could have arisen and colonized the galaxy. In the last 13 billion years, since the first generation of stars seeded the universe with heavy metals from which planets and living beings could form there have been 130,000 such chunks of 100,000 years.
What is the probability that an intelligent species will rise and colonize the galaxy? We will not derive this theoretically because we don't have the necessary astronomical data to do so. We will rather derive this statistically using the observations that 1) we exist, and the assumption that 2) the galaxy as we see it is the most probable way for us to see it.
The fact that we exist means that a previous civilization has not colonized the galaxy. It simply isn't to a civilization's benefit to "preserve" a planet for hundreds of millions of years on the off-chance that a species might evolve to intelligence and technology. Far better to colonize the planet and use it productively. Since aliens have not done so, because we exist, it follows that aliens haven't colonized our galaxy in the last 13 billion years.
So the probability of us seeing the galaxy as we do is ((1-X)^650)*X if we unreasonably assume that civilizations could only have arisen in the last 65 million years. And ((1-X)^130,000)*X) if we reasonably assume that such a civilization could have arisen at any time in the last 13 billion years. In both cases, X is the probability of a civilization arising and colonizing the galaxy within a specific chunk of 100,000 years. These two probability functions have maxima which correspond to the value of X that is most compatible with us seeing the galaxy as we actually see it.
So in the 65 million year case, the probability of a civilization arising in any given 100,000 year chunk is about 1.5 in 1000. And in the 13 billion year case, the same probability is about 7.7 in 100,000. This is the chance that we will meet aliens as we colonize our galaxy. So yes, SETI is a gigantic waste of time, effort and resources because the aliens really aren't waiting for us. With greater than 99.8% certainty. If you are very, very optimistic.
See also the continuation What Galactic Colonization Really Looks Like. And the meta-argument SETI types are Creationists.
Posts
71 comments:
Care to run those numbers to include "other galaxies" or is your axiom simply "Aliens don't exist within the Milky Way"?
I'd be happy to. Though I believed it obvious I meant in the Milky Way. Beyond the Milky Way doesn't matter because Type II civilizations don't stay biological. So humans beings will never meet aliens.
So let's see, the Andromeda Galaxy is roughly 2.5 million light years away from the Milky Way. But it's also less 30% massive than the Milky Way as of the latest astronomy.
Assuming the fertility of Andromeda is 2/3 of 7.7 in 100,000 that of the Milky Way and then counting 50 time slices, to offset the time light had to reach us as well as the time it would take to go there, then the chance of meeting aliens in Andromeda is about 3 in 1000.
It's only when our civilization extends its reach through the Virgo Supercluster that it will likely meet aliens. At some point more than 10 million years in the future.
You're still thinking from the perspective of meat.
Maybe before you get to be an interstellar species, you have to first stop being made of meat?
Post-meat creatures might only consider meat-creatures about as important as rain drops; short-lived, mostly water.
"To start off with, how long does it take for an intelligent species to rise and colonize the entire galaxy? It takes roughly 100,000 years. Because the galaxy is 100,000 light-years in diameter and civilization arose on Earth a mere 10,000 years ago. Even under the most pessimistic assumptions, within 100,000 years of its rise, an intelligent technological species will have colonized half of the galaxy."
Ummm... wtf? It took 4.5 billion years to get to where we are now, and who knows how long it will be before we reach interstellar travel speeds that let us limp along to Alpha Centauri, let alone beyond. Not too mention the amount of time it would take to actually colonize any viable planets...
> Ummm... wtf? It took 4.5 billion years to get to where we are now,
The point is that it didn't have to. Nothing in the universe prevented a technological civilization from arising 8 billion years ago. And certainly not 65 million years ago back when the dinosaurs ruled.
> and who knows how long it will be before we reach interstellar travel speeds that let us limp along to Alpha Centauri,
A nuclear powered orion could have made the trip already if it had been built. But it doesn't matter because sometime within the next 1000 years we will "limp along to Alpha Centauri" with absolute certainty. Barring a mass extinction level event.
> Not too mention the amount of time it would take to actually colonize any viable planets...
Irrelevant. Galactic colonization happens in parallel. And the second generation spacecraft will be a lot faster than the first. So in the time it takes for the first spaceship to get to its destination, the second one is built to travel much faster and may reach its destination much faster than the first. Same with any subsequent generations of spaceships until you hit near the speed of light. Something which is definitely doable.
Evolution never occurs at a uniform rate. From the largest ecosystems to the smallest evolution of life goes through catastrophic phase transitions. Five major extinction level events have occurred on our own planet. The largest ecosystem for purposes of this discussion is our own galaxy. The big Bang occurred 13.5 billion years ago. Our galaxy formed about 2-3 MY's later. Just as things were very chaotic on our own planet after it's formation, conditions in our galaxy were even more chaotic. Large stars collascing hypernovae etc. For billions of years Gamma Ray Bursts sterized the galaxy again and again. We can measure such bursts in distant galaxies. That's how far these emissions can travel. Life is opportunistic. A window of opportunity is all it needs. Your comment invokes the Fermi Paradox--"So where are they?" The answer is phase transition. I would suggest the window of opportunity opened up about 6-7 billion years ago in our galaxy.It's hard to imagine any planetary system more perfect for life to evolve than our own earth. (The Rare Earth theory). A planet for example a bit closer to it's sun would be much hotter. It's not that intelligent life couldn't evolve there, it's just that all evolution would be slowed down. Even if the planet and it's solar system formed sooner than ours. The answer to Fermi's Paradox is that all of the planets that may have evolved intelligent life began at roughly the same time with varying rates of evolution. None as yet have had enough time or opportunity to yet clonize the galaxy despite the fact that the time to do so may cosmologically (and theoretically) seem to be a relitively short time.
Your argument is a good one, but there are a lot of assumptions you're making that are only about 80% probable.
First of all, it could be that it's relatively easy for aliens to reach the dinosaur stage, but much more difficult for them to reach the industrial revolution stage. This means we could go around looking for dinosaur-stage aliens, which would be a lot of fun. (Keep in mind that if it isn't this, then it's probably some other hurdle like abiogenesis or the transition to multicellular organisms.)
Second of all, you're assuming that the costs of colonizing other planets is basically trivial, and that a practical method of sublight travel will be found.
Third of all, you're assuming that any civilization with the power to colonize other planets *will* colonize other planets. I'm not sure that we are going to limp over to Alpha Centuari as you say. Most of the Internet ads I've seen are trying to get me to spend more time on the internet, at some other website. What if simulated reality becomes more interesting than actual reality?
Fourth of all, you're assuming that any aliens are of the type that would consider Earth a useful planet for colonization.
I also think this sentence is dubious: "It simply isn't to a civilization's benefit to "preserve" a planet for hundreds of millions of years on the off-chance that a species might evolve to intelligence and technology." If *I* was in charge of a Type II civilization, evolving new crawlies would be one of my top priorities. Sure, there is some chance that there would be quicker artificial means for creating new species. But there's also something to be said for having an entire planet full of experimental organisms.
> This means we could go around looking for dinosaur-stage aliens, which would be a lot of fun.
Yeah, and it could be fun for some people, but I'm not too interested. I'm primarily interested in technological civilizations.
> Second of all, you're assuming that the costs of colonizing other planets is basically trivial, and that a practical method of sublight travel will be found.
It is and it's already been found. See Orion nuclear propulsion. The only thing stopping it is Cold War geopolitics. And I'm not talking about colonizing planets, I'm talking about building dyson spheres in orbit around other stars using the local resources.
> Third of all, you're assuming that any civilization with the power to colonize other planets *will* colonize other planets.
A million years is a long, LOOOONG time to have a fanatical anti-development attitude and to impose it on *every single member of that civilization* by brute force using tyrannical totalitarian methods. Revolutions happen in a lot less than a million years. And if they don't then we would have to annihilate any species that had developed a million-year tyranny.
> What if simulated reality becomes more interesting than actual reality?
So what? The computing power theoretically possible in a given volume of space over a finite amount of time is itself finite. Do you seriously see us not demanding geometrically increasing amounts of computing power? I want to have my own AI some day. And I want to download my mind into an AI. And once that's done, I want to expand my mind by using vastly more computing resources. I may even choose to distribute my mind. And on and on and on. Ultimately, we will outgrow the resources of our solar system. And however long it takes, whether it's millenia or hundreds of millenia, will be a short span of time on an astronomical scale.
> Fourth of all, you're assuming that any aliens are of the type that would consider Earth a useful planet for colonization.
Earth has matter. Matter is useful. End of story. If you're thinking of some kind of Star Trek kind of colonization, stop thinking it. To colonize a star system you start by dismantling all the planets ....
> Sure, there is some chance that there would be quicker artificial means for creating new species. But there's also something to be said for having an entire planet full of experimental organisms.
A planet is the least efficient use of resources imaginable. With its resources you would have enough computing power to simulate millions of planets' worth. So not worth it. It isn't that there "might" be a quicker way to evolve species, it's known that there is.
A sound and well-worded proof. I'm convinced there aren't aliens, at any rate. The chances are simply too low, and at any rate, various factors drive, for all practical purposes, the final nail(s) into the coffin:
1) Assuming aliens even evolved into hominids, who is to say that they would even develop the technology to find out about us?
2) Assuming (and this is going against Occam's razor, mind you. I take this as further proof against a pro-alien stance) that aliens COULD discover us, this does not necessarily mean that they could CONTACT us.
3) Assuming they could contact us, would it be friendly or unfriendly? In the former, it is likely that they would recognize world leaders. It is not hard to find the leader of any group which indeed HAS a leader, at least not in the animal kingdom (which is what I am basing these aliens on, as Earth's animal kingdom appears to be doing very well for itself evolution-wise). So the aliens would likely contact world leaders. Yes, they could keep it a secret, but it begs the question: WHY? To keep people calm? Sort of, but then the aliens would be friendly, maybe. So people would be skeptical of their friendship and of course probably arguing on the side of defensive maneuvers, but not rape-and-pillage chaotic.
4) Assuming the latter of the two above choices, there would most certainly be a strike by the aliens in some form or another. Cumulatively the Earth already has enough power to destroy itself twelve times over, if the aliens had already landed and planned an invasion from the inside, they would have launched the invasion years ago. Had the aliens decided to come out in the open and attack people, we wouldn't be having this debate, would we?
Based on the above statements I logically conclude that aliens do NOT exist insofar as is humanly observable, and thus do not merit further research unless proven to exist. Speculation is free but of course rather useless.
I gotta tell You, this is easily the most enjoyable read I've had in a long time, maybe even 100,000 years.
Smart money is on a mass extinction level event.
I'm sorry this is random but you seem to be very popular yet you have no available biography online. I'm trying to write about you, Richard Kulisz, for an english summative but I need more information on who you are.
I totally agree with you, like whether I agree or not changes the facts. Aliens don't exist.
Aliens are like religions--People want to believe in them so, rather than get on with fixing humanity's problems, we can focus money, time, and resources on imaginary beings, enriching the charlatans behind their proliferation's.
Kevin, I'm not sure of the psychology behind belief in aliens. I know the psychology behind the ecology / doomsaying and solar power movements. Mother Earth, Father Sun is straight out parental figure worship. Aliens don't fit in that scheme. The only thing I do know is that aliens have taken over from beliefs in elves and fairies (ie, impregnation, hallucinations, lost time).
I really wish that if magical thinkers can't be logical, they could at least worship civilization. The same civilization that clothes them and feeds them and gave them language with which to think. The same civilization that produced literally all that they are. Though again I've met at least one magical thinker that didn't appreciate having a consciousness and openly wished to be a mindless animal. Perhaps this is a wish to be infantilized?
The only clue about where aliens come from seems to be their super-neotonous state. That is, they're big babies. So maybe baby worship? Dunno. And that wouldn't explain the fairies. Then again, fairies had changelings which was a FEAR of babies. Who knows, maybe it's just a grab bag of random psychological junk.
thanks this was good info:-)
A couple of years ago I published a comment Richard and you never answered. I'm hurt. So let's try it again. Four hundred now. Since I last posted we've found 400 exoplanets. There's nothing special at all about the way our solar system formed. It's of course the same laws of physics. There are upwards of 200 billion stars in our galaxy,the Milky way. Let's say (to pick a round number) ten planets per sun. That's 2 trillion planets and countless moons. That's what I would call a shitload of real estate! Now add to that 125 billion galaxies and it gets ridiculous. Gliese 581d is among the four hundred planets discovered so far (and our techniques are still rather primitive). Gliese is in the habitable zone. That means any water there will be liquid. Fifty to seventy percent of the water on our own planet came from comet collisions with Earth early on in our planet's evolution. There will be water on Gliese 581d. Water is the perfect solvent for biochemical reactions. When our galaxy first formed 13 billion years ago conditions were extraordinarily chaotic. The Milky Way actually is the result of several galaxies merging. For the first five or six billion years stars collided, supernovae blew up, neutron stars merged (sending of huge amounts of sterilizing gamma radiation)and a huge black hole formed in the galactic center (among other catastrophic events that made life in the galaxy impossible. Until a calmer equilibrium can be established no life is possible. All ecosystems go through these phase transitions. The only thing constant is change. Life is extraordinarily opportunistic. If a glacier covers a lake during an ice age all life (relatively speaking) in the lake dies. What happens when the glacier recedes however? Life comes back. About 6-7 billion years ago the repetitive sterilizations of the galaxy slowed down and at this phase transition a window of opportunity opened. "Where are they?" Fermi asked. Our planet benefits from nearly perfect conditions for the evolution of life. The other planets in the galaxy who witnessed this opening of a window of opportunity, even those in the habitable Zone, may not have been so lucky. The problem with human beings is that they have always been so egocentric. Actually ego-maniacal. Human beings think they're They most definitely are not.
JFTRESH, I haven't responded because your comments are retarded and irrelevant. The fact you can't see how utterly irrelevant they are only proves you are an inbred idiot.
It doesn't matter how many fancy stories you make up for "life". And while I'm on it, people are only interested in technological civilizations, so what's this "life" all of a sudden? Are you incapable of comprehending the English language you retard? Do you not know what "alien" means?
Like I was saying, it doesn't matter how many fancy little storytales you weave about biospheres repeatedly extincting too many billions of years ago to count. After all, there's a reason one of my scenarios is a mere 65 million years. The only thing that matters is that ALIENS DON'T EXIST. As demonstrated by the fact that WE EXIST. It's really that fucking simple. Either we exist or aliens exist and that's all there is to it.
And for your information, none of your bullshit "sterilization events" could stop a galactic civilization. The fact you think they do only showcases how little you know. But then there's a lot you don't understand, like the whole concept of "exclusive or" like the exclusive or that's "either we exist OR aliens exist but NOT both".
And I really have to wonder what half of that witless rambling about humans being egomaniacal is even supposed to be about. I know Americans are since that's the national identity but what the fuck that has to do with humans or with aliens I have no idea.
Richard-
I found your post fascinating, as me myself trying to explain to others the sheer impossibilities of aliens. I was wondering if I could possibly get your stance on religion? I myself am a Christian (please, If your not don't bash me for it, it was how I was raised) but I also recognize the valid side of the big bang and evolution. My big question is, if everything comes from something, how did the "big bang" occur?
-Jordan
PS - I typed this on my iPhone so the spelling might be off.
Jews don't stop being Jews by becoming atheist. If you ever turn atheist, no doubt you'll be an atheist Christian. Although there's a theological problem there since Christianity requires actual belief in God whereas Judaism doesn't.
The answer to your question on the big bang is complex in the sense that there exist multiple perfectly valid answers to it. Each of them is sound (actually the case, not just hypothetical) but will probably not be convincing on its own. And the totality of them will be mind-bending.
But before going into how massively physicists have screwed up big bang theory, I had to lay some groundwork showing how massively physicists have been screwing everything up over and over again. I've posted that now. Many weeks after first promising it.
I will go further into big bang theory soon. That will address your specific question but not my broader stance on religion.
In my post on Overlearning I provide some hints that religiosity is a recognized mental illness among psychologists often brought about by harsh emotional abuse if not organic illness. Priests are some 4x more likely to have schizophrenia than the rest of the population. Hallucinations and the Presence of God are both symptoms of schizophrenia which can be reproduced by chemical drugs.
On evolution, you can have read all you like on the subject, until you read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ you won't know much. Most people don't know much about it. I encourage you to go through that site, it's extremely educational and eye-opening.
My stance on religious explanations in the domain of physics is summed up by:
http://clublet.com/c/c/why?ScienceUsedToBeReligious
[which link doesn't appear to work]
and by the observation that God Did It is an amazingly poor explanation for anything. In fact, it's maximally poor since in order to be logical you have to specify "God, an entity that would want X, Y, Z to happen is the one that caused X, Y, Z to happen". This is kinda circular (which is bad) and more clumsy than just assuming that X, Y, Z happened for no reason at all.
God Did It is pretty much the poorest explanation conceivable by the standard set by Ockham. Anything that's worse than God Did It (and it doesn't happen often, but physicists have actually managed it) is horrific.
Inbred idiot? Retard? How old are you Richard, twelve? I thought you might be an intelligent and mature person. You are clearly neither. It's YOU who doesn't understand. But now I see why. When you graduate to middle school they'll teach you bigger words. Retard? I haven't heard that since I was in sixth grade. It's easy to see your frustration. You lack common knowledge of physics. You grossly underestimate the extreme difficulty of interstellar travel. If all cultures got started at the same time it's still a race to see who accomplishes interstellar travel first. Inbred idiot? When someone in a debate resorts to such amusingly puerile language it's clear they've lost. If you weren't so immature you would see that. That of course along with your arrogance. A less childish person knows your arrogance demonstrates a serious lack of self confidence. Who are you trying to convince Richard, me or yourself? Not to worry, those adolescent years can be difficult. The acne will clear up soon enough. No one will respect your opinion on anything you post Richard. You're way too immature and arrogant. I suspect anything you post is only read by people who enjoy laughing at you! Re-read what I've posted when you get to High School. After some basic education in physics and biology you might begin to understand.
I see where your coming from, but the reason that through all of the opposition, as einstein said "religion without science is dumb, science without religion is lame", I feel like there has to be so much more to where we came from, how did we come out of a non existant space into a beautiful universe? When you are on your death bed, will you still think you will just cease to exist, or will you repent clinging to some hope of heaven and an everlasting paradise and happyness. I mean not to offend you if any of this did. Btw I'm only 15 so I might sound under educated.
-Jordan
Humorous video on "Stupid Design" featuring Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mryDAixYHJY&feature=player_embedded
Enjoy!
you helped me with a project prooving aliens dont exist.thanks!
So you're basically saying that aliens don't exist because we will never meet them.
Also, you keep saying how it's only "3/7000 chance that this will happen" or "3/1000 chance of this happening."
Think about how mind-crushingly enormous the universe is, and how many billions of galaxies there are in just the 28 billion light years of visible universe.
Every one of the millions of different possibilites and paths a galaxy can take has, is, or will almost definitely happen at some point. Therefore, even if there is only a 1.2% chance of aliens existing, that 1.2% could mean hundreds of millions of different life forms, at all levels of development.
Michael, you're one of those people who take pride in not understanding statistics, aren't you? Or it seems physics, especially things such as light-cones.
Finally, you seem to have no conception whatsoever of geological time. There are no "stages of development". There is only birth of a technological species and then a flash later, AI. Every galaxy in this universe populated by any lifeform whatsoever is populated by AI. Every single last fucking one of them.
http://alex-semenov.livejournal.com/10824.html
Мы дискутировали по русски
http://alex-semenov.livejournal.com/10824.html
We discussed in Russian
HAHAHAHAHA. God, I can't help but laughing at just how ridiculous you are. I honestly feel VERY sorry for like you. Really.
So, apparently you are the smartest, matter-of-fact person alive. (Or so you think) Tell me then, just what exactly, does the U.S. government do at Area 51, and S-4, and other various secret locations?
Im not into all this physics or how big the universe is or how many light years away we are from anything. My argument would be that if the nail on my baby finger is the size of our galaxy and the size of the earth is the size of the universe(dont get all technical on me on sizes of anything) then which is more weird, that we are alone in the universe or not. I think its a lot more weird that were alone. please respond to my post(minus any insults)
YO. I DONT THINK THIS STUFF IS ALL TRUE. WHY SHOULD A SMART ALIEN RACE FOCUS ON COLONIZING SOME STUPID GALAXY LIKE OUR OWN,WHEN THERE IS BILLIONS OF EM THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE. THERE COULD BE LIFE ON OTHER GALAXIES AND THERE COULD ALSO BE LIFE THATS NOT SO SMART IN OUR ON GALAXY. YOU BETTER GO SEE A WIKI PAGE ON INTERSTELLAR DISTANCES. THEY ARE NOT EASY TO TRAVELL
how do amma rays steralise life?
Jordan, there are events called Gamma Ray Bursts that are thought to be associated with supernovae. Specifically, with massive particle & x-ray beams spewing from the poles of supernovae as they're collapsing into black holes. Drawings of collapsing supernovae, neutron stars and quasars always have these two beams spewing in opposite directions, sweeping the sky.
The thing is, these beams are NOT SPHERICAL. They're not spheres. So when a supernova pops, it does not and CANNOT sterilize all life in a sphere around itself. Rather, it sterilizes all life in two very narrow beams from its poles.
The difference between a spherical event and a beam event is pretty fucking massive. We're talking about a hundred times less volume being sterilized than the bozos who worry about supernova sterilization are fear-mongering about.
Think of it like a Lighthouse of Death versus a Nuclear Explosion of Death. There's a really good chance the lighthouse will miss you.
See http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060424_mm_star_deathray.html
The GRB thing is basically doom-saying and hype. There's an incredible amount of that around.
Even with that small chance, there is a chance. Being that our world has been around for a hell of a long time, there could have already been civilizations that have destroyed themselves. With that you have to also think about all the UFO's that have been spotted throughout the world
You're argument is weak in many places. Firstly, an alien species (defined as a living organism that evolved outside of the atmosphere of the Earth) is not mutually exclusive with our own species. Second, you argue about statistical improbability. Many improbable things occur each day due to the rule of large numbers. At an estimate of one billion billion planets in the universe (accurate at last scientific evidence) there is a one in a billion chance of life developing on a planet. That leaves one billion planets capable of harbouring life. We need not assume these aliens have reached technologically advanced levels. Please respond to this comment soon without insults, as all they do is harbour pointless anger.
Aliens do exist. There's other life supporting planets in the universe. Just because there's no "proof" that aliens dont exist in our solar system doesn't mean there's none in our galaxy or universe. Frank Drake found an equation that estimates the # of life supporting planets in our galaxy and his estimation was about 10,000 planets. Other scientists used newer data and theories and came up with over 100,000 life supporting planets in our galaxy. They also found a Martian rock with organic molecules and tiny specs of the mineral magnitite. I can go on and on about other facts that aliens are real.
My opinion of human intelligence keeps decreasing. Thanks guys!
Aliens don't exist. And nearly every "alien encounter" on Earth has been proven to have human involvement and "alien abductions" people claimed to have happened is just night paralysis. As cool as it'd be to be true, its not. God speed to all those who continue wasting their time with such nonsense. You'll never find it, just like you'll never find another Earth or living organism.
Finally! Another rational Human....ahhh it's a rare thing.
I Belive...there is life on other planets...but theyre not as or, just as advanced as we are
Thank you, Richard Kulisz. Hopefully you haven't lost all your faith human intellect. Only about 80% of the people here posted bogus alien theories... And I've heard that the majority of the human race is stupid anyway... So if you can't open their eyes, just turn your back on them!
I honestly don't even know where to begin *sigh*. This Richard fellow has no clue what he's talking about period. No offense, but he's clearly speaking from the point of ego and not using his brain very well. On the contrary, there is no evidence to suggest "aliens don't exist." There is more evidence to suggest they do. There is no reason to assume humans are "that intelligent." We can barely make
it to our own moon. Try taking a walk in a scale model of the solar system. Also, when we
measure the age of our planet vs our galaxy, there is no doubt that there is ample time for
"aliens" to get an enormous headstart on our civilization. The fact that we haven't detected
one yet using our technology fits logic. Our technical civilization is only a couple hundred
years old. I mean honestly can anyone reading this article not see the clear bias? I'm sure
Richard is a nice fellow in person, but on this subject matter, his ego seems to have a larger gravitational pull than Jupiter....
Cheers from Seattle
from reading a few of your comments, i have come to the conclusion that your physical appearance would resemble a combination of these two things: (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZgtmvB1q5oU/SRUP_c0BJaI/AAAAAAAAACk/AvP7udZaU_E/s400/FatAss_small.jpg)
and this:
(http://www.bigaussiehats.com/images/green_bhat.jpg).
It is ludicrously ignorant of you to believe aliens do not exist.
suck your dads dick.
I don't know if you still view these comments but I have only this to say: Aliens may not exist now, but what's stopping them from existing in the future? Why can't the aliens be at our own level now?
I agree with jfresh, Richard has no idea what he is talking about and is incredibly arrogant. He is obviously getting all his info. from Wiki, conspiracy stuff and other crap people have said over the Internet. If you genuinely were smart and thought of these ideas yourself you wouldn't be writing them on a forum and arguing over them like children. But since these are not your ideas but lots of stuff from other people you have thrown together it shows you aren't smart.
And by the way, using the best possbile English you can and fancy words does NOT make you smart! it just means you take ages writing stuff and checking over it to show your arrogance which masks your insecurities. Look at top level lecturers and professionals, they make mistakes both spelling and grammer all the time. It doesnt matter though, you are just an arrogant stupid prick! GET A LIFE!
And who cares about this shit really? aliens or no aliens? neither will be proved in our lifetime anyway
An obvious and blatant conspiracy theorist & unoriginal idiot accuses me of being a conspiracy theorist & unoriginal idiot. It fits right in, alongside the narcissist who accused me of being a narcissist.
This is why I despise you all. You are all with very few exceptions utterly incapable of the most rudimentary forms of abstract reasoning.
The proof of my accusations is simple. This bozo claims "who cares about this shit really?" which proves he's a non-intellectual at best. What he follows it up with proves he's anti-intellectual. He is hostile to ideas except where they affect him directly.
I've never met a creative person who's so hostile to new ideas and even to the possibility of new ideas cropping up ("this will never be proved in our lifetime"). Do you know why? It's because it's impossible for a creative person to think that way!
Moreover, his whole attitude smacks of someone who can't see originality when it strikes him upside the head with a 2 kilo sledgehammer. He is an idiot yes, but he is a very characteristic type of idiot - he is devoid of creativity, of originality, of synthesis.
So we have here someone who is unoriginal & uncreative who is hostile to the proposition that original & creative people even exist. I say again, this is why I despise you all.
Yet another reason I despise you all: people who can't comprehend mathematics.
Is there a reason all comments get posted without going through moderation first? ...
Why should they be moderated?
1. Spam gets deleted after the fact just as easily as beforehand.
2. Supposedly offensive comments are never offensive to me since I don't give a shit about social standing and propriety. Since idiots can't hope to understand a mind as alien to theirs as mine is, the only way they can offend me is accidentally.
3. If people are willing to showcase their deep and irremediable idiocy in public, and are not embarrassed by it in any way, it only proves I'm right for despising them.
4. Even psychotic stalkers can be put off by turning off anonymous comments temporarily. That is, even they don't require moderation.
5. People who moderate their blogs and mailing lists are sick, twisted, domineering control freaks. Such people should die.
The only thing worse than moderating such forums is stripping participants' email addresses so they can't talk to one another and revolt. This is not a hypothetical example. Lloyd deMause's stooge did this on the psychohistory mailing list.
6. Whenever I comment on a moderated private site, I get a feeling of inferiority, of being caged and beholden to someone. Of having to beg and plead some moron I despise. This feeling is utterly vile, disgusting and despicable.
I have far too much integrity to inflict this feeling on anyone short of delusional psychotics, those deserving death, and those deserving unending torture. And why should I deprive people I despise from the destruction they invite by talking to me? I think I can do a better job of tearing them apart than just giving them the cold shoulder! Unless of course they are masochists as has happened once.
You are full of shit. Aliens do exist, whether it be in the galaxy or not. Aliens dont have to be space traveling, Imperialistic, conquerors. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that they were watching us 100 years ago. We were aliens to them as much as they were to us and we didn't even have airports let alone space stations. Therefor your whole essay or whatever you want to call it, is useless. Especially since the title is "Aliens Don't Exists" which directly implies they wont at all or ever. We exist, so the chances elsewhere is just the same.
That right there is a fantastic argument. "Imagine X therefore X is true". Wow. I am amazed. Nobody else has been quite so blatant in displaying their idiocy.
Richard Kulisz...You got some anger issues to deal with. People have there own opinion and you come and force your beliefs on to someone else. Plus, your just plain rude. These people are just asking questions and you respond calling them idiots.....ps. most of the people here are just laughing at you. Dont respond to this message, unless you are offended.
I am offended by your astonishing idiocy. As if I can't comment on my own blog? It's crap like this which makes me think eugenics is a great idea. Revoke the idiots' license to breed!
What do you think of the comment " There must be aliens in space, because our space is so vast"? I don't believe in this comment I am just wondering what your feedback is. Thanks.
I already addressed this in my first paragraph. Yes, space is vast. But people who talk about that fail to comprehend how vast TIME is. The age of our galaxy is ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND TIMES bigger than its diameter. And what do we see when we look in the past? We see emptiness. We see LIFELESSNESS. When you look at time, you see a vast desert with NOTHING in it, plus a single solitary oasis which just happens to be where we grew up. Then these morons talk about how there "must be" life out there in the boundless tracts of empty desert. Hmm, no, there doesn't have to be. Any moron can just open their fucking eyes and see the truth. So these people must be submorons. Submorons who are incapable of looking at time.
Yes scientists are not able to see past a certain point, but we do know that there is aproximatly 3 sextilion stars out in the universe. In case you don't know how big that number is, that is the number 3 followed by 23 0's. Now unlike you, i will cite my information from where i got it. I got this from (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/number-of-stars-in-universe_n_790563.html), and the source where that information comes from is Yale University astronomer Pieter van Dokkum and Harvard astrophysicist Charlie Conroy. Now your information has no citations at all or indication where this information came from, there is nothing on the internet about you therefore you are not a well know scientist that made any discoveries. And if you multiply the numbers you have posted about the possibility of alien life, the number is still in the billions or more.
One problem with what you have said, is that the name of your blog is "Aliens Don't Exist". The term alien which has several meanings, but the one you are referring to it " a form of life assumed to exist outside the Earth or its atmosphere", this comes from (http://dictionary.die.net/alien). Just to make you understand it more, this means that any form of life that does not live on the earth is called an alien.
Now I will not bring up any more numbers, but one thing that you mention a few times is that aliens (keep in mind the definition), will never land on the earth. And there sir you are wrong. There has been a meteorite found that struck the earth and NASA analized it and found a "alien" microbe inside it. Do not dispute me about it, but since NASA claims to have found it, that is way more credible then anything you say. And to find this, just google it, but just in case, here is a site with exactly that: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite/
Now do not go and criticize me with childish name calling and swearing, for that only make you seem more and more immature and also makes other people think less of you.
hmmm, looks like my post is no longer there, i posted it maybe 5 hours ago. It was about you not citing your sources and other things like that meteorite that was found with alien life in it. Oh, and also the definition of the word "alien". So why would you delete that post?? Cannot prove me wrong or cannot find your sources, or maybe both??
Oh it looks like a post that i posted about 5 hours ago is not there. What was in it was about you not citing your sources,a meteorite found that contained alien life, and also the definition of the word "alien". Why would you delete this? Cannot prove me wrong, too lazy, cannot find any sources for what you posted?? And again, don't be childish and respond with foul language and name calling. Its just adding idiocricy to the name Richard Kulisz.
oups i thought the first one didnt post, sorry about that
When I last posted a comment Richard was when we were at the count of 400 exoplanets. The number of exoplanet candidates is at 2300. At least 5 of these are in the "habitable zone". That, as you know, means that any water on the planet will be in liquid form. Imagine yourself flying over the surface of a planet with varying sizes of bodies of water. Would you really believe that all that water is perfectly sterile? No life at all? Would a microbe in the sea of an exoplanet be considered "alien"? "Aliens Don't Exist" -R. Kulisz I wonder if R. Kulisz could possibly be mature enough to admit he was mistaken. It's only a matter of time. Personally I would guesstimate billions of exoplanets with microbial life only, millions with simple multicelled organisms, thousands with higher degrees of complexity, and a handful with intelligent life at various levels of development. What do you think, Richard?
alien,adj., def.: Extraterrestrial. Any organism organism not originating on the Earth would be an extraterestrial organism. i.e., alien. I used to think use of "retard" and "imbecile" in your replies Richard, meant you you're twelve years old. I was wrong, I think. You're just dumb.
Richard is finally losing it. Maybe it's dementia. Richard evidently believes there cannot be such a thing as an alien microbe. What does everyone else think?
Fascinating stuff,how brave to be soseemingly knowlegeable without ever leaving this planet. I have recently found out that some asteroids have bacteria on them, by definition that is life, and that some bacteria can grow 10x as much as if it was on earth, therfore showing that other environments can indeed support life. I personally think with a brain like yours, you are wasting good thought on a pointless arguement. there is life out there, what stage is for us to find out in time. to think we are the only living things in the sheer size of the universe is absurd.If the most intelligent beings out there were made up of different things and breathed different atmosphric conditions,this place would not be a valid planet for colonisation. Time will however prove all things.
THIS IS RIDICULOUS. The reason why we aren't hearing from aliens is because IF THEY HAD THE KNOWLEDGE TO COLONIZE THE DAMN GALAXY, THEY WOULD BE AEONS AHEAD OF US IN DATA ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGY. AFTER ALL, THEY DON'T WANT OTHER BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS EAVESDROPPING ON THEIR INTERSTELLAR BANK ACCONT TRANSFERS. AND IF THEY WERE ENCRYPTED, THEY WOULD INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RANDOM BACKGROUND NOISE.
Here's a thought for you: Homo Sapiens (us) have been on Earth for 200,000 years. By your logic, since it should take 100000 years for an alien race to develop and colonize half the galaxy, we should have colonized the whole galaxy. We have barely touched the moon. Also, you can't prove a negative. There is a difference between humans never meeting aliens and humans being the only intelligent life. You contradicted yourself when you say "Aliens Don't Exist" and then say "Human beings will never meet aliens."
Also, what you are saying is exactly what most people told Alexander the Great. When he searched for new lands in India, his peers said there was none. He proved them wrong.
Also, who is to say they are not among us? We have fossilized evidence of a Martian microbe on Earth. If Mars could have developed even unicellular life, then why can an Earth-like planet not develop intelligent life?
Ok soo, I read your article, and alot of the comments posted, I was really on your side about things. Up until the point where you started rejecting EVERYTHING EVERYONE ELSE SAID, so what? you are smarter than everyone? is that it? no wonder you didnt understand the post about ego's. I'm not taking up a position if aliens exist or not. I'm sure alot of nerds out their would love the idea of aliens. But like you said, over all the years that have passed by, it just doesn't make sense. See thats all cool and all, but then, when someone posted something, that pretty much debunked your No aliens THEORY. you stooped down to calling him an inbred, and retarded. You sir, were either 15 when you made this. Or you are too far shoved up your own ass to look at other peoples views, then add it to your own :)..... Basically, what sums it up is a nice sentence from you, "But before going into how massively physicists have screwed up big bang theory" Oh rly?, TAKE A PICTURE OF YOUR UNIVERSITY DEGREE'S AND ANY OTHER PAPERS THAT SHOW YOUR EDUCATION. $10 says, if you arn't 16 (Or atleast you were when you wrote this). you either dropped out of your classed because you thought you knew everything, or you went to a piece of shit school. So once again, in closing, if you want to post a scientific article. Act like a scientist and take everything into consideration. Dont pull a little hissy fit because someone said something that came close to proving you wrong. Like gdamn. I most likely will never come to this crap blog again, so really, if you wanna explain why you act like a child, send me an email. But be warned, that I wont even bother if you start calling me an inbred retard. Because I can assure you, that I am not :), wodahskcin@gmail.com I expect to hear from ya soon, retard LOLOL
I'm not just smarter than everyone else, I'm massively smarter than everyone else. And you, you're below average for the company I keep. I've run into your type often and I have no interest whatsoever in talking to you. Unlike your anger, frustration and defensiveness towards me ... what I feel towards you is complete and utter indifference. You are a chirping cricket out in a field. Insignificant and, worse of all, monotonous.
It's obvious, to me at least that "Richard kulisz" is actually an alien. Afterall, why would he be so defensvie when he claims that aliens dont exist? Therefore he's an alien. I once saw a ufo and the alien inside ate cinamin buns. "richard kulisz" probably likes cinamin buns too.
Microbes are still aliens.
I'm saying it.
You can't stop me.
So it's 16 years later, the year is now 2023 and Robin Hanson has attracted some attention for his "grabby aliens" thesis (see http://grabbyaliens.com), which is based on a very similar premise to the one here, but drawn to very opposite conclusion, namely, that aliens exist, are abundant, close and "quickly" (on a cosmic scale) approaching us.
This comment section is probably the deadest place on the internet, but I can't help myself from yelling into the void. Do you think Hanson's analysis holds up? Does the fact that we seem to have arrived "early" in the universe's lifespan alter your conclusions at all?
Post a Comment