It's crazy to think about how huge the universe is. The light that we see from some stars originated hundreds of thousands of years ago. It's certainly plausible that any signal that we finally receive from some other world could have been sent eons ago, and that civilization may be long gone by the time we even knew it existed. And it's just as likely that any signal we send might not be seen by another world until we are long gone as well.

Or that we are alone.

Sure, and it's maybe just as likely that on this distant planet, we'll call it Hypotheron for giggles, may be filled with single cell organisms. Maybe they battle over a racial divide like we do. The meiosis crowd vs the mitosis crowd.

 

It's also quite possible that we are the top of the intelligence meter if there are other life forms out there. We fantasize over what they might be. Has it ever occurred to any of us that maybe they haven't made contact because they aren't as intelligent as we are?, since we are throwing out theory.

There is an infinite number of theories that could be thrown out, many of them equally plausible because none of them can be supported with facts. It is very possible that there are alien species that evolved that do not communicate with sound, but with light or gestures. They could be very advanced but the notion of or need for radio transmissions might never have occurred to them.

 

Scientists on this planet have begun experimenting with quantum entanglement, which could theoretically be used for instantaneous communication across vast distances. It seems obvious to us that advanced civilizations would be transmitting powerful radio signals into space, but an advanced civilization might have abandoned radio for communication because it is not really a practical for interstellar two-way communication. It is actually barely adequate for controlling robots on Mars because of the long delays.

 

I also recognize that human beings could be the only intelligent life in the universe. The fact that we exist makes it more likely that other intelligent species exist elsewhere in the universe than if we did not exist, but we have no way of predicting the probability that life, let alone intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe.

So, I'll play along. What if there is another life form(s) out there? Why is it that we are insistent that they are so advanced? Smart?

 

we watch waaaaaaay too many movies.

As I stated, as exhibit "A" I give you a few billion stupid people on this Earth! I rest my case! :sssh:

 

As was stated at least a few times, our solar system is only about 4.5 billion years old. The universe is around 15 billion years old. Are you saying we were the first life forms out of the entire universe? That it took over 12 billion years for life to form? As life started on Earth about 3.7 billion years ago.

 

We only started sending radio waves out into space less than 100 years ago, and many say that our real technology started with the stream engine, so that was what? 200 years ago? Think of all we have done in just the past 100 years, or the computer age, the difference in technology just in the past 30 years. Now, lets say another planet that had life was just a few thousand years older than us, how much more advance would they be?

First, you do realize how unscientific the aging guess on the universe is I'll assume. Second, again, IF there's life other than ours out there, there's no reason to believe that it's anything different, more advanced, than ours is now.

 

I'll simply say that I'd be remarkably difficult to convince that any of the "presumed" life out there in the ethos isn't a bit romanticized by our generation of dreamers.

First. There is a very good estimate. Generally accepted the universe is at least twice the age of our solar system. Also generally accepted is that the universe is close to 15 billion years old, but not more than 20 billion.

 

Second, and this is where we can agree, it may end up being extremely difficult to find intelligent life out there, we may never find it, and as stated before, if we did find it they may be long gone before we figure it out. As well as we may be long gone before anyone else finds out about us.

First, you do realize how unscientific the aging guess on the universe is I'll assume. Second, again, IF there's life other than ours out there, there's no reason to believe that it's anything different, more advanced, than ours is now.

 

I'll simply say that I'd be remarkably difficult to convince that any of the "presumed" life out there in the ethos isn't a bit romanticized by our generation of dreamers.

Please explain how current estimates of the age of the universe are "unscientific."

First. There is a very good estimate. Generally accepted the universe is at least twice the age of our solar system. Also generally accepted is that the universe is close to 15 billion years old, but not more than 20 billion.

 

Second, and this is where we can agree, it may end up being extremely difficult to find intelligent life out there, we may never find it, and as stated before, if we did find it they may be long gone before we figure it out. As well as we may be long gone before anyone else finds out about us.

Well, if you believe everything you watch on "The Universe" on the history channel, then maybe. Still way too much theory for me. They also made a wonderful stretch document on evolution that they pawned as fact. Not a huge fan of the history channel and it's programming often times, obviously.

Please explain how current estimates of the age of the universe are "unscientific."

So, you think blending Biology, astrophysics, astronomy and geology together give a perfect picture? You really think that the "estimations" are exact? Come on Mitch, surely you don't believe that for a second. Hardly a repeatable science, wouldn't you say?

Perhaps I should clarify. The method may be scientific, but the result is unreliable theory, IMO.

So, you think blending Biology, astrophysics, astronomy and geology together give a perfect picture? You really think that the "estimations" are exact? Come on Mitch, surely you don't believe that for a second. Hardly a repeatable science, wouldn't you say?

That is really not an answer. Geology and biology play no part in estimates of the age of the universe. You said that the estimates of the age of the universe are "unscientific," but you do not seem to understand the basis of those estimates.

 

Do you want to give it another try? What assumptions have scientists made in estimating the age of the universe that are "unscientific?"

Well, if you believe everything you watch on "The Universe" on the history channel, then maybe. Still way too much theory for me. They also made a wonderful stretch document on evolution that they pawned as fact. Not a huge fan of the history channel and it's programming often times, obviously.

No, I actually dabbled a bit into this. Nice of you with your "theories". And others in this thread have explained facts in great detail, I am sure they didn't just get that from a TV show. So you show your bias? Not a fan of the history channel so if you think something was said on there that it is not true and or fact?

 

BTW, Mitch asked you a question, but you respond to a question with a question? Why not answer? Please, explain how current estimates of the age of the universe are "unscientific.

How very few people see it, lol!

Perhaps I should clarify. The method may be scientific, but the result is unreliable theory, IMO.

What part of the method makes the theory unreliable? The red shift of light spectrum? The speed of light, which has been measured with great precision?

 

Even if the estimate of the age of the universe proves to a few billion years more or less than the 13.8 billion years estimate, the potential for alien civilizations much more advanced and much less advanced than our own certainly cannot be ruled out.

 

I do agree that if such civilizations exist, they are not likely to share many of our human characteristics, which are portrayed in most science fiction.

That is really not an answer. Geology and biology play no part in estimates of the age of the universe. You said that the estimates of the age of the universe are "unscientific," but you do not seem to understand the basis of those estimates.

 

Do you want to give it another try? What assumptions have scientists made in estimating the age of the universe that are "unscientific?"

I made a generalization with regard to alien life and the age of the universe. Perhaps I should have been more clear. And I fully understand how science has estimated the age of our galaxy and our universe. I also believe it's theoretical. Research even admits it's hypotheses regarding the age. I'm not playing the want to try again game with you. You really want to argue the nucleocosmochronology and it's "estimates". How about the exact science of the "parallel universe"?

 

Are they scientifically hypothesized? Sure. Are the estimates repeatable? Depends on what radioactive element they measure? Again, theory.

I made a generalization with regard to alien life and the age of the universe. Perhaps I should have been more clear. And I fully understand how science has estimated the age of our galaxy and our universe. I also believe it's theoretical. Research even admits it's hypotheses regarding the age. I'm not playing the want to try again game with you. You really want to argue the nucleocosmochronology and it's "estimates". How about the exact science of the "parallel universe"?

 

Are they scientifically hypothesized? Sure. Are the estimates repeatable? Depends on what radioactive element they measure? Again, theory.

It is obvious that you have no idea how the age of the universe has been estimated. It has nothing to do with radioactive elements and decay rates.

 

To answer your question about repeatability, there is very broad consensus among scientists that the age of the universe - at least since the Big Bang - is 13.8 billion years +/- a couple hundred million years.

 

As for theories about the existence of parallel universes (plural, and possibly infinite in number), there is much less agreement among scientists. I find it hard to believe many scientific theories, but experimental evidence has repeatedly supported Einstein's theories, despite the fact that the technology did not exist during his lifetime to test key parts of his theories.

 

For example, atomic clocks have been used to measure the effect of speed on time. Traveling into the future is possible and it can be measured. That defies common sense but it is still true.