Extra terrestrial life beyond our blue planet

[Newton08]

Everone is curious if there is any extra terrestrial life beyond our blue planet.

do aliens really exist?

Some organizations claim that they've got the strong evidences about existence of alien or the landing of alienship on earth, is it true?

any comments'd be appreciated.

cheers,
ryan.

 

[russ_watters]

The evidence, as of now, does not meet scientific standards for reliability.

 

[PalashD]

There will exist extra terrestial life because we can't be alone in such vast a universe but the probability of us ever having an interaction with such life is neglibly negligible

 

[russ_watters]

Such absolutes like "can't" don't apply to a problem where there is no direct evidence to support any conclusion.

 

[madmike159]

Some one (sorry can't remember who it was) when asked if he thought life existed in other parts of the universe replied "I hope so, otherwise it’s a big waste of space".
I doubt aliens have landed here. Even if they had FTL travel the effort for them to get here wouldn't be worth it if all they did was fly around or make crop circles.

 

[coverme]

If there were aliens(much intelligent species) traveling our planet in UFO's , why they land only in developed countries like USA,russia Germany etc,why not in very poor countries I guess its the false propaganda made by government of rich country publicizing that they have well understand space and have a lot of progress in that.
i believe that there may be living organism in other planet ,but we cannot be sure if they are under/above intelligent than us.

 

[Blenton]

Because I assume the aliens want to interact with intelligent humans. Aka developed countries :D

 

[coverme]

Because I assume the aliens want to interact with intelligent humans. Aka developed countries :D

Our supposed aliens are to be millionth times intelligent than intelligent humans,why would they visit the species having intelligency,1millionth of the themselves

 

[russ_watters]

Some one (sorry can't remember who it was) when asked if he thought life existed in other parts of the universe replied "I hope so, otherwise it’s a big waste of space".

That would be Matthew McConaughey's character in Contact...great movie.

 

[madmike159]

That would be Matthew McConaughey's character in Contact...great movie.

Yea that's the one. Best line "Thats hydrogen times pi".
I think for alien's to get here they would need a higher level intelligence than us.

 

[Borek]

I think for alien's to get here they would need a higher level intelligence than us.

Sounds like contradiction to me - if they have a higher level of inteligence than we do, they won't get here.

 

[Newton08]

If there were aliens(much intelligent species) traveling our planet in UFO's , why they land only in developed countries like USA,russia Germany etc,why not in very poor countries

Yeah, the most UFO encounters are recorded in US, that doesn't necessarily mean most US Americans have video camera. I think US government is working on secret super technology aircrafts but I don't agree that they are working with aliens. yeah, I also can't understand why UFO's are only encountered mostly in developed countires. Some even claim that they've been kidnapped by aliens, lol. If I're kidnapped I'd take control of their alienship with my evil mind, lol.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If there were aliens(much intelligent species) traveling our planet in UFO's , why they land only in developed countries like USA,russia Germany etc,why not in very poor countries I guess its the false propaganda made by government of rich country publicizing that they have well understand space and have a lot of progress in that.
i believe that there may be living organism in other planet ,but we cannot be sure if they are under/above intelligent than us.

Your premise is false. Without addressing the claim of ET directly, UFO reports are not limited to industrialized countries. In fact, in Peru, the idea of visiting ETs is almost taken for granted; esp with the older people.

 

[coverme]

Your premise is false. Without addressing the claim of ET directly, UFO reports are not limited to industrialized countries. In fact, in Peru, the idea of visiting ETs is almost taken for granted; esp with the older people.

well it was up to my knowlege.

 

[subliminal]

If there were aliens(much intelligent species) traveling our planet in UFO's , why they land only in developed countries like USA,russia Germany etc,why not in very poor countries I guess its the false propaganda made by government of rich country publicizing that they have well understand space and have a lot of progress in that.
i believe that there may be living organism in other planet ,but we cannot be sure if they are under/above intelligent than us.

This is where you are dead wrong, there have been reports in countries all over the world even in third world countries.

Here is a good video by astrophysicist Dr. Michio Kaku.

 

[SDetection]

I wonder why I always hear about things like aliens, ghosts or UFOs, and yet I haven't seen any of them in my whole years of living on earth. My guess is that I will never see these exotic things, and this is too bad! . Perhaps there is only one wicked alien that is wandering the Earth trying to mock us, the lucky son of a b...

 

[gtatix]

They exist. I don't know why they are here. I don't know where/when they are from. I can't explain how they might travel across - what we perceive as - vast space IF they come from other star-systems.

I do know I have seen two moving in tandem one evening - DEFINIETLY NOT a plane or anything else that flies around this Earth that anyone has ever knowingly invented. No sound and super-fast.

I had a very close relative who was sworn to secrecy - working for the Canadian Federal Government. Years ago, he told me that he was involved with a few interesting projects with the military after WWII. He was commissioned to investigate UFO sightings. He said that he couldn't give me any information because of his secrecy oath but he did say: "I started the program a skeptic; when I finished I knew for sure that we are not alone in the universe." From someone as honest and true as this man - I HAVE to believe it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I do know I have seen two moving in tandem one evening - DEFINIETLY NOT a plane or anything else that flies around this Earth that anyone has ever knowingly invented. No sound and super-fast.

What exactly did you see?

 

[gtatix]

What exactly did you see?

When it happened, I reported it to Peter Davenport of NUFORC:

Click http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/043/S43202.html" for my report.

The whole list of sitings from my province at NUFORC is found http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/ndxlON.html" .

If you go to the Ontario sitings link within NUFORC - via link directly above - you will notice my report dated: 3/27/05 20:40 Brampton (Canada) directly above it - later on in the evening - another report was apparently logged: 3/27/05 22:15 Brampton (Canada)

Davenport runs a pretty tight ship and is well respected. There is a lot of great reading and reports within the site from all over North America.

http://www.nuforc.org/"

The data base for North America - although titled "National" - is found http://www.nuforc.org/webreports.html" .

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When it happened, I reported it to Peter Davenport of NUFORC:

Click http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/043/S43202.html" for my report.

Thanks. If you haven't done so already, be sure to take a look at the UFO Napster at the top of the S&D page. Note that the NSA [National Security Agency] just reorganized their site again, so while the reports cited are still available, not all NSA links are working.

Why do you think that you saw alien spacecraft s, and not some unrecognized natural phenomenon, or an unfamiliar technology?

 

[CEL]

It is very hard to evaluate speed with only angular measurement. A near slow moving object has the same angular displacement than a fast moving and distant object in the same time.
So, unless you had a reference (the objects flying behind objects at a known distance), you could not know if they were at very high speeds.

 

[gtatix]

It is very hard to evaluate speed with only angular measurement. A near slow moving object has the same angular displacement than a fast moving and distant object in the same time.
So, unless you had a reference (the objects flying behind objects at a known distance), you could not know if they were at very high speeds.

In this case there were many relativistic references for me to be certain that these two objects were moving at a very high rate of speed - and acceleration - compared to any other flying object I have ever seen.

Your argument is really only valid for an observer in an unknown environment. If you were to live near an airport that clearly had a zone where planes were either taking-off or landing or circling. And high above there are planes passing overhead regularly. You would be quite familiar with the rate at which a plane moves across or through your field of view while landing, taking-off, circling and flying very high overhead. This was my situation.

Again, your suggestion can be valid at times when an object is moving directly towards or away from the observer. It is very difficult to gauge the velocity or acceleration if you only see a light source of unknown size and it is moving right towards or directly away from you. This was not my case.

An example would be standing on a very flat piece of land - say like the Bonneville salt flats - and a vehicle is approaching from a few miles away. It would be impossible to visually estimate the velocity of the vehicle if it were coming directly at you or moving directly away from you. If it were a small dot on the horizon and it became so close that you could read the model name on the hood within 5 seconds, you would be absolutely correct in "assuming" that it was moving very quickly. In fact I would argue that you would be absolutely correct if you stated with certainty that the vehicle was moving very very quickly.

 

[CEL]

In this case there were many relativistic references for me to be certain that these two objects were moving at a very high rate of speed - and acceleration - compared to any other flying object I have ever seen.

Your argument is really only valid for an observer in an unknown environment. If you were to live near an airport that clearly had a zone where planes were either taking-off or landing or circling. And high above there are planes passing overhead regularly. You would be quite familiar with the rate at which a plane moves across or through your field of view while landing, taking-off, circling and flying very high overhead. This was my situation.

Again, your suggestion can be valid at times when an object is moving directly towards or away from the observer. It is very difficult to gauge the velocity or acceleration if you only see a light source of unknown size and it is moving right towards or directly away from you. This was not my case.

An example would be standing on a very flat piece of land - say like the Bonneville salt flats - and a vehicle is approaching from a few miles away. It would be impossible to visually estimate the velocity of the vehicle if it were coming directly at you or moving directly away from you. If it were a small dot on the horizon and it became so close that you could read the model name on the hood within 5 seconds, you would be absolutely correct in "assuming" that it was moving very quickly. In fact I would argue that you would be absolutely correct if you stated with certainty that the vehicle was moving very very quickly.

Even if you know your surroundings, you can not estimate the distance of an object against the sky, specially at night. In automatic control theory such a situation is called unobservable.
A practical example is the Moon. When it is near the horizon it appears much larger then when it is overhead. In both cases the Moon covers exactly yhe same angle, but unconciously we think that it is farther away at the horizon, so the same angle represents a larger object.

 

[gtatix]

Even if you know your surroundings, you can not estimate the distance of an object against the sky, specially at night. In automatic control theory such a situation is called unobservable.
A practical example is the Moon. When it is near the horizon it appears much larger then when it is overhead. In both cases the Moon covers exactly yhe same angle, but unconciously we think that it is farther away at the horizon, so the same angle represents a larger object.

Are you sure you know what you are talking about? The Moon illusion is apparently still a conundrum. Not to mention that I read that a much greater percentage of people unconsciously perceive the moon on the horizon as a "closer" object, not an object that is farther away.

The moon enigma aside, the situation was not one that required my knowledge of the distance of the objects. In ANY case the objects would have been moving very quickly. If they had been directly overhead - which they were at first - and 100 feet above the ground, they would have been moving very very quickly. If they were directly overhead and 4 miles up, they would have been moving at multiple-mach speeds relative to any and all airplanes I have seen moving at any height.

Let's use your moon example. IF one evening you saw the moon on the horizon "rising" at what you perceive as its nominal rate and suddenly - within 4 seconds it was nearly overhead, would you be thinking that you were experiencing an illusion or an unmeasurable sight or would you be confident that the moon actually moved that quickly? Clearly other physical situations would make this very very unlikely, but what you have visually witnessed clearly was not normal relative to the rate at which the moon pretty well always moves. You don't need to know whether the moon is bigger or smaller on the horizon or whether it is an illusion. You don't need to know whether the moon is 1000 miles closer or 40,000 miles closer, you only need to know that the speed it just exhibited was way faster than it has ever been before.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

gtatix, you still haven't explained why you think it was an alien spacecraft .

 

[gtatix]

Thanks. If you haven't done so already, be sure to take a look at the UFO Napster at the top of the S&D page. Note that the NSA [National Security Agency] just reorganized their site again, so while the reports cited are still available, not all NSA links are working.

Why do you think that you saw alien spacecraft s, and not some unrecognized natural phenomenon, or an unfamiliar technology?

They could have been an unfamiliar technology. They could have been an unrecognized natural phenomenon. If something is either unfamiliar or unrecognized then it would be impossible to disprove that they were either of these.

They were nothing I have ever seen in the sky.

The only way to prove they were an object that was flying and that they were not a secret technology or a natural phenomenon would likely be to contact the people tracking the skies from the airport or Norad or similar. Will we ever get this information from any such entity? I tried and suggested this within my report with no success.

Were these aliens flying in some sort of alien spaceship from another world light years from Earth? I have no idea.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Fair enough. You are welcome to share your experience and discuss the details, but any specific claims about what they were requires at least anecdotal evidence that supports the claim.

 

[russ_watters]

The moon enigma aside, the situation was not one that required my knowledge of the distance of the objects. In ANY case the objects would have been moving very quickly. If they had been directly overhead - which they were at first - and 100 feet above the ground, they would have been moving very very quickly. If they were directly overhead and 4 miles up, they would have been moving at multiple-mach speeds relative to any and all airplanes I have seen moving at any height.

You contradict your first sentence with your description in the rest of the sentence! What you describe is exactly what the problem is! Since you don't know that it was 4 miles up or 100 feet up (or 10 feet up?) you can't say anything about its linear speed. Heck, even the word "quick" isn't very useful: it is a qualitative statement, not a quantitatvie one. A firefly can traverse your field of view in seconds, but a statellite might take minutes. Which one is moving "quicker"?

This problem points to your account being unreliable.

[edit] By that, I mean your conclusions, not your description, where you constrain your description to what you saw.

It really is tough to tell from your description, but a dull red light that separates into two could be a meteor that splits or it could be the glowing engines of a couple of figher planes flying in formation. There isn't enough info in your description (and probably can't be) to really tell what you saw.

 

[gtatix]

You contradict your first sentence with your description in the rest of the sentence! What you describe is exactly what the problem is! Since you don't know that it was 4 miles up or 100 feet up (or 10 feet up?) you can't say anything about its linear speed. Heck, even the word "quick" isn't very useful: it is a qualitative statement, not a quantitatvie one. A firefly can traverse your field of view in seconds, but a statellite might take minutes. Which one is moving "quicker"?

This problem points to your account being unreliable.

This whole attack on my ability to estimate the speed of an object in the sky is beyond annoying.

What the hell are you talking about russ? How do I contradict myself? You have added a non sequiter element to the occurence. What you are essentially saying is that any and all objects that are seen moving in the sky could actually be a bug flying past us.

You are simply wrong when you say "You can't say anything about its linear speed." Can't say "anything" is a pretty large claim. I can say that it was not inches or centimetres or dozens of feet away. If it were 4 or 3 or 2 or 20 or 21 or 1.5 or .5 or .6667 miles up that it was moving MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH faster than ANY airplane that ever passed through my field of view that allowed for a path that was away from and moving from a close position to a farther away position such as these objects moved.

I can say that it was well above the trees and the houses around me because if I were behind any of these, the objects were blocked by trees or houses. If they were glowing red bugs such that I have never seen and flying at just above the tree tops I can say without a doubt that I have never seen any bug or bird or flying creature move anywhere nearly this quickly.

Either you guys are not understanding what I am saying or you are being difficult on purpose because you believe that every and all unidentified objects that have ever been seen by any observer are all explainable as a known technology by some entity of this Earth or a natural phenomenon that is proven to exist by some human entity or group...yada yada yada. I believe you are clearly wrong if this is what you believe.

You are clearly free to believe what you wish. Evidence using machinery and measuring devices apparently add to the validity of an observation. But any scientist knows that observations are required with any and every experiment or measurement. The key word here is observation. Using one's eyes. It is possible to enter psychological hypotheses and presume or offer that nothing is real?! It is all an illusion. If you wish to go down that path, you're on your own.

To be told that what I witnessed on this one occasion - knowing that it was clearly nothing that I have ever seen before anywhere at anytime - and knowing that it was not a bug passing quickly past my face and that it - at the MINIMUM distance that it could have possibly been - moved with a speed that was not possible for any bug glowing or burning or any bird glowing or burning or any airplane or tank or jeep or ... how much more do you need to have me explain myself.

Based on questions asked by Peter Davenport, he was satisified that I did not see a bug or bird or plane of any kind that he would be familiar with.
If you don't believe in any of this stuff, then I really don't care.

Whether these were two ships with aliens that intend to destroy the entire planet or they were bugs out for a love triste above the trees of Brampton really makes no difference in the grand scheme of things.

At least when it comes to what really matters to me in my life at this moment.

I believe I have had enough of this thread and forum.

I will close by saying that "Ivan Seeking" has certainly done a great job with organizing and supplying current information available to be viewed and reviewed. I applaud you for that Ivan.

Good Bye!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Thanks.

Unfortunately, as Russ said, it is not possible to estimate speed or altitude without having an absolute reference. I don't think anyone is trying to say that your sighting is explained, rather that there are limits to the information that can be extracted from an observation like yours. Also, we have to consider all possible explanations. That is not to say that any particular explanation can explain your sighting, but we can't conclude that what you saw was an ET craft. There are other possibilities.

 

[jreelawg]

You should listen to Russ, he makes a good point. You also shouldn't be so arrogant to think that you know every known phenomena and every aircraft made by man, and how they would look that you are so sure you've ruled everything out. How can you expect people to accept the account as you say it without proper evidence.

If I took everything you say for the truth, then I go tell a friend, that someone saw something that was beyond nature and man, so it must be aliens, then they go tell someone the same thing, then eventually you have tons of enthusiasts claiming of some rumored siting that could not have been natural or man made, all based on hearsay.

 

[ideasrule]

I think gtatix is saying that the objects he saw were much faster, in terms of angular speed and not actual speed, than any of the planes he saw. I'd consider that a valuable piece of information and evidence that the objects were not planes. However, gtatix can't say the objects were alien spacecraft because of that; he can only say they weren't the commercial airliners that typically land at Pearson, something that I'd agree with.

 

[junglebeast]

When it happened, I reported it to Peter Davenport of NUFORC:

Click http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/043/S43202.html" for my report.

Based on your report it sounds like you could have been looking at the red glow of burning fuel coming out of two jet engine planes that were flying away from you, parallel to each other, and then veered off in different directions. You were near an airport, after all.

 

[DaveC426913]

Based on your report it sounds like you could have been looking at the red glow of burning fuel coming out of two jet engine planes that were flying away from you, parallel to each other, and then veered off in different directions. You were near an airport, after all.

And this gets at the crux of so many UFO sightings.

There is no doubt that gtatix saw something unfamiliar and downright strange. Let's not that thought go by too quickly ... it was strange. Whatever event occurred that night might very well have been a one-timer - maybe no one's seen anything quite like it, and possibly no one will again.

But there's strange and there's strange.

It is highly, highly implausible that gtatix looked up just in time to see two planes exhausting their fuel, then pealing off in different directions at angles that, from his vantage point, looked impossible. It just sounds like you're reaching, yes?

But surely, even gtatix can see that seeing an alien spacecraft is orders of magnitude more implausible. And that it is orders of magnitude longer of a reach for an explanation.

 

[math_04]

The truth will always be out there . Depends on what you define as 'alien' though. I guess there is a better likelihood to find bacterial type life forms rather than intelligent life. There are some intriguing articles if you are interested.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601022v1

The above paper was about the Red Rain phenomenon in Kerala. India.

There is an idea out there, called panspermia, that we might ourselves be descendants of alien life forms that settled on Earth.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=did-life-come-from-anothe

 

[math_04]

And this gets at the crux of so many UFO sightings.

I really hope this thread does not become some another debate on the validity of UFOs. So many threads on this forum are all about UFOs.

People should stop linking aliens to UFOs and little green men, there is so much potential for a nice debate on DNA, genetics and all the different ideas floating around related to the idea of extra terrestrial life.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I really hope this thread does not become some another debate on the validity of UFOs. So many threads on this forum are all about UFOs.

People should stop linking aliens to UFOs and little green men, there is so much potential for a nice debate on DNA, genetics and all the different ideas floating around related to the idea of extra terrestrial life.

Do you associate UFOs with aliens?

By my count, 4 out of 28 threads on the first page are dedicated to UFOs.

 

[junglebeast]

It is highly, highly implausible that gtatix looked up just in time to see two planes exhausting their fuel, then pealing off in different directions at angles that, from his vantage point, looked impossible. It just sounds like you're reaching, yes?

I think you mean "improbable" not "implausible." Implausible means "not physically possible." My explanation is certainly possible/plausible.

Statistically speaking, the probability of observing an exact event in a real number space is infinitesimally small for any event, even if you are just sampling a well conditioned normal distribution! So, while it is true that it has low probability...there was also an infinitesimally small probability that I would wake up this morning at exactly 9:36:01:..., yet I did.

Essentially, to apply statistics in a meaningful way here, one would have to ask "how likely is it that any human being on any night of the year on any year ever happens to see 2 planes flying away in the sky?"

 

[DaveC426913]

I think you mean "improbable" not "implausible." Implausible means "not physically possible."

No. Implausible means 'difficult to believe', which is exactly what I meant to say.

It is (at least, in the general scheme of things) hard to believe that what he saw was an event like two planes venting fuel andf then pealing off in different directions.

The reason it is implausible as an explanation of the eyewtiness account is because it is improbable.

Statistically speaking, the probability of observing an exact event in a real number space is infinitesimally small for any event, even if you are just sampling a well conditioned normal distribution! So, while it is true that it has low probability...there was also an infinitesimally small probability that I would wake up this morning at exactly 9:36:01:..., yet I did.

Essentially, to apply statistics in a meaningful way here, one would have to ask "how likely is it that any human being on any night of the year on any year ever happens to see 2 planes flying away in the sky?"

This is exactly what I'm saying, yes.

 

[DaveC426913]

The upshot here is:

No one is saying gtatix did not see a UFO.

No one is denying that gtatix saw something very strange and likely very rare.

But what he saw was so rare in fact, that any explanation of it is likely to sound completely implausible because it will require some highly unlikely events.

But we know for a fact that some very unlikely events did happen (even if it is simply the conflagrence of a few rather more common things such as planes venting fuel and a peculiar angle from which they are observed.)

Witnessing a pair of planes venting fuel etc. etc. is likely extremely rare and therefore pretty implausible.

Witnessing UFO is somewhere between 'incredibly rare' and 'zero' (if there are no UFOs then the occurence of the event is zero) and therefore extremely implausible.

We go with the one that is less implausible.

 

[junglebeast]

Oops, my bad with the definition of implausibility.

Witnessing a pair of planes venting fuel etc. etc. is likely extremely rare and therefore pretty implausible.

Now hold on...who said anything about venting fuel? This is what it looks like when fuel is vented:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/F-111-Fuel-Dump,-Avalon,-VIC-23.03.2007.jpg

Ok, that's pretty impressive...not at all like the "subtle fuzzy red glow" in the incident report. I was just referring to the natural glow that comes from a jet engine. It was reported that there were two red glows close together, which then veered off in different directions. All that is required is to have 2 F16's flying side by side, as they often do, before veering off.

Observe the red glow:
http://www.tristesse.com/~keith/airshows/f16-1.jpg

For a brighter red glow, they can turn on the afterburners:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/FA18_on_afterburner.jpg

 

[DaveC426913]

Now hold on...who said anything about venting fuel?

My bad. We're even.

 

[fillindablank]

Life must exist elsewhere. There isn't only one of anything in the universe so it makes no sense that there is only one planet in the universe that has life.

 

[milos92Serbia]

What would iyou say if you see green light on the sky at night , twice the size of a star ,
going much faster than an airplane moving left and right how suddenly disappears? I saw that two times , so as my friends who were with me at the time. The people just can't understand the universe and that there might be at least 10 civilizations only in our galaxy.
If aliens really landed on our planet , with that kind of tehnology they could destroy us in seconds - why didn't they ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Life must exist elsewhere. There isn't only one of anything in the universe

How would you know? If there's only one of something, the chances are highly unlikely it would be nearby.

BTW, there's only one DaveC426913.

so it makes no sense that there is only one planet in the universe that has life.

The universe is not obliged to make sense.

 

[fillindablank]

How would you know? If there's only one of something, the chances are highly unlikely it would be nearby.

and it would then be exceedingly rare proving my point. Since there isn't one of anything in the known universe other than a planet with life I would say it's much more likely that we aren't unique rather than we are. And there are soon to be 7 billion virtually identical to DaveC426913 (just with a different number).

The universe is not obliged to make sense.

Obliged? Maybe not. But every day as we learn more, more of it does make sense than not. If it doesn't make sense it's because we don't know enough yet.

 

[DaveC426913]

Since there isn't one of anything in the known universe other than a planet with life

This is simply nonsense. How can you make such a leap of faith?

Obliged? Maybe not. But every day as we learn more, more of it does make sense than not. If it doesn't make sense it's because we don't know enough yet.

Precisely. Which is why things that (right now) don't make sense (such as us being alone) are no indication that those things (i.e. us being alone) are wrong.
As we know more, it will begin to make sense why we're alone.

I'm not arguing that we are alone, I'm merely pointing out that your logic is flawed.

 

[TalonD]

I there was also an infinitesimally small probability that I would wake up this morning at exactly 9:36:01:..., yet I did.

EsQUOTE]

Assuming you sleep 8 hours per night. That probability is 1:1,728,000 unless your clock shows tenths of a second?
what is the definition of infinitesimal?

with aplogies to Drake...
Life can exist in what we would consider inhospitable environs such as the bottom of the ocean and under the Antarctic ice cap.

There is evidence of past life on Mars (the fosolized bacterium on a martian rock found in Antarctica) unproven I admit. but not debunked either.

Out of 9 planets, one has life for certain (Earth) one may have had life (Mars) that's at least one out of nine, possibly two.

an estimated 80% of stars have planets. An estimated 100 billion stars in our galaxy yeilds 80 billion planets.

At least one extraterrestrial planet is known to have water which is normally required for life here on Earth.

the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and the Earth is 5.5billion so it seems we are here remarkably soon after the initial inflation period.

The universe has a minimum radius of curvature of 100billion light years with galaxies distributed in a roughly homogenious distribution amounting to how many possibilities?


all this leeds me to think that the probability that life exists no where else in the uiverse but here on Earth is infinitesimally small.


but then that's just me... :)