I feel that sometimes we assume that intelligence means to build craft and soar the universe. My gut tells me that this is our niche as humans and shouldn’t expect this outcome when looking.
If an intelligence has conquered its home planet for a certain purpose, they will continue to explore, or obtain resources, for the same reason. We were driven by our curiosity ne our will of exploration - who knows what it might be for aliens?
Valid point. I wonder if a planet that consists of one main species with no predators would be the same. Would this take away their aggression? If so would they feel the need to conquer?
When you factor in the vastness of the universe, I believe you are wrong. But that still leaves the question, will we ever be able to detect them as the maybe be several galaxies away.
The issue is the way our solar system is arranged is turning out to be very unique. Inner rocky planets and gas giants outside so the system orbits will be stable over long periods.
I don't see why you think its so unique. If accepted theory about how an ecretion disc turns into a star and planets is true, then many will look just like ours.
@@Robert08010 You missed the point. It's the arrangement of the planets that's a bit unique. The gas giants being outside the rocky planets saves them from getting pummeled by asteroids and comets and stabilized their orbits.
@@Robert08010 It has nothing to do with time or how old the solar system is. It comes down to how it evolved over that time period. Ours evolved differently than most cause a couple of the gas giants decided to exchange positions while clearing out all the space debris along the way. Something as simple as Jupiter being a tiny bit closer and we would have been slung off into space a billion years ago. Our star being a single star on its own is almost unique by itself.
@@finscreennamehow unique ? How many solar system do we know are Similar to us in our galaxy ? And in other galaxy ? Do we know or are they just too far
Whilst It’s possible there may be plenty of microbial life the occurrence of technological civilisations may be far less than one per galaxy, which would explain the fermi paradox.
@@condor68y1 Nonsensical, how so? You do understand the Fermi paradox was posed as a question not a theory? That is: “where is everybody?“. One possible answer to his question is the absence or the scarcity of technological civilisations within the universe.
@justgarry5485 Yes, but you offer no actual fact or argument. Drake equation takes major factors into account and calculates thousands are likely. Question is why we do not see/hear them. Just saying they do not exist is not helpful.
@@condor68y1 I did not suggest they do not exist; although they may not. I was simply making the counterpoint that they may not be at all common; there are some strong arguments for this. The rare earth hypothesis for instance this would suggest that planets capable of hosting intelligent life are extremely rare within the universe. Furthermore, it took around 3.5 billion years from life first appearing to get to multicellular organisms with the likelihood of several great filters along this journey. Additionally, the conditions that allow advanced intelligence to evolve are highly unusual. In our case a series of very lucky flukes. Of the 50,000,000,000 plus species which have ever lived on Earth only one has made civilisations. This line of reasoning is compatible with Drake’s equation and it is therefore not unreasonable to suggest the occurrence of technological civilisations may, and I stress may, be far less than one per galaxy, which would explain the Fermi paradox, although other explanations are of course possible.
@justgarry5485 Now that's a real argument, though there is good reason to believe it is hundreds to thousands. The numbers that are inputs into the Drake equation, especially the number of habitable zone planets, have gone way up since JWST and TESS began their work. And we have signs of life from several planets already. So even when we found 500 extrapolating that data says that of 500 billion stars 50% or more have a habitable planet. And 3 over 500, 0.6%, already have been shown to have indications of life. That's 3 billion planets in our galaxy as primordial pools. Only time will tell bur thing are looking good. 👌 I expect we will identify life in this decade now.
Fun fact: There exists a planet 600 light-years away that astronomers believe has a core made out of diamond and if sold, it would give every person in the world, including you and me, 260 trillion dollars, since it has a mass of 14 earths. But since it's so close to it's star, that it's being torn appart by the star's gravitational pull. and another fun fact: There are at least 500 million planets that are in the habitable zone in the milky way. Venus and Mars used to have life in the planets.
How arrogant would it be to think we are the only intelligent life in our galaxy with a hundred billion habitable planets? Especially when we have already discovered organic matter on asteroids. It is clearly the vast distance that prevents communications and that could last forever. But the main variable in the Drake equation limiting the number of intelligent species in the universe for which we have no answer (other than ourselves) is: How long does an intelligent civilization live before destroying itself with technology? 😢
@lindsayscott4537 Personally I don't believe that will ever happen in our lifetime. The cost and distance of such trips is too high, and even at the speed of light could take generations living on spaceships. That said robot probes are possible 😳 Have you read about Von Neumann Probes? Google that. Far more practical scenario.
Is it destroying itself or is it that technology so advanced will eventually completely change the existence of that species in terms of what we could understand or see. An alien race so advanced could have become nanotechnological or download their consciousness into an artificial reality - or maybe they are destroyed by AI but that AI would become far more advanced than the biological beings it replaced. There is also the possibility that a race could become so advanced that they can perceive higher dimensions and even see and perceive time as a physical dimension of direction in which case we would never be able to understand what they are, where they are, or if they've already visited.
@Hewhoremains420 there are likely to be other civilisations in the universe as a whole but we may well be the only civilisation in the galaxy at this moment in time.
No, that would be 20,000 planets with life. Very, very different than civilizations. Fish are life, not civilizations. The hurdles from life to intelligent life are huge. Whales are intelligent life. So are birds. And virtually every other animal, of which more than 99% went extinct. Civilizations require communications, writing to pass down knowledge, the opposing digit (thumbs to use and make tools) and lots more.
Actually our solar system is extremely unique in the sense that no other solar systems with as many planets as ours are known. There are 402 quantifiable and necessary characteristics of a planetary system and its galaxy that must fall within narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of advanced life’s existence. A slight increase or decrease in the value of any single one of these 402 characteristics would gravely impact that possibility. Remarkably only our solar system meets all of those extremely rare qualities out of all of the solar systems we’ve analyzed to date.
We have analysed almost a zero proportion of all planetary systems.. easy to forget there are a couple of trillion galaxies. The stupendously rare is commonplace. A thousand Lottery winning planets in just our galaxy, 2,000 trillion lucky winners in the visible Universe, assuming 1:20,000,000 are winning tickets, one ticket per star. Gosh.
These planets are not our mother. Looking for Earth 2.0 is like having a chimp gestate and raise human embryos. But actually far more distant the chasm, in terms of biology, micro flora, etc
@Hewhoremains420 Does it frustrate you to not understand others? No need to be rude. Okay I will try to explain in simple terms, rather than metaphors. It is very unlikely that we will find a planet suitable for sustaining human life. It is far more reasonable to try and apply human ingenuity and technology to looking after the planet that we currently reside. An earth *like* planet will not have the same biochemistry, microbiome, or even biophysics, than the one that we reside on -- creating infinite hurdles for our survival.
@@peacefulmaroon I think based on statistics alone, there are Earth-like planets somewhere, so we will find one, if we keep looking. By the way, we’re looking for a planet that is just like earth, not one with different conditions(such as increased mass, too close proximity to its sun). If we give up now, we’re sure we won’t find a planet, and it indeed will be wasted resources. If we keep looking, we’ll find a new home, and it won’t be resources wasted. Now, to summarise your point, I believe you said that “we should spend resources on our problems rather than spending them on exploration, because we haven’t met our goal yet.” I think that exploring new homes is a necessity, because if we expand to other planets, we’d need an interstellar-level catastrophe to end humanity, leaving more opportunities for human ingenuity to solve problems like curing cancer.
We want be here to see when it happens but, the galaxy Andromeda is headed towards the milkyway. When it clashes with our solar system the sky will look unbelievable planets in close view to the naked eye. But the chances of earth even surviving that is very slim. It can be burned up by drifting nere by stars getting to close ect. Who knows but luckily we won't be here to experience it, I pray for those who will be here.
@@condor5912 "Almost sure", I don't think so. If the premise is wrong from the beginning, the result of calculations will be wrong. Even our planet life by all probabilities was not supposed to exist. The universe itself was not supposed to exist, therefore - the "Boltzmann's brain" scenario.
The Universe teems with life. We are not the centre of creation. From Galileo to the James Web telescope,a continuous ongoing discovery of the wonder and glory of God's creation !?
I think it comes down to biodiversity. Think about how many different forms of life there are. It all started as microscopic life. When you look at how much easier it is for microscopic life to survive in the oceans and ponds, than on land, it seems likely that a planet with an ocean is a best chance to find something we might be able to recognize as "life".
Could there be a twin earth that is slightly out of 3d context we don't see it? Yet it promotes life just slightly lighter in frequency than our more dense earth? McKenna/story time 2 vids describe this brilliantly.
No. You're mostly talking giggerish. "Slightly out of 3d context" and "lighter in frequency" means NOTHING in physics. That's only relevant is a scifi fantasy novel. "Twin earths"? What does that even mean? If you mean could another planet nearly identical to Earth exist in this solar system, sure but we already know it doesn't exist. What this video is about is the search for planets like the earth in other solar systems. The problem there is that we are still struggling to even detect bodied that small, let alone we can't actually see any yet so we don't know if they are actually "earth like", having water oceans, etc.
@@Robert08010 I was an electronic mechanic in the early 1970s. I've seen some strangeness. Any time I try to share my experience it sounds like giggerish. Even to me. It's like the Russian dolls that fit inside each other. Layers of reality we don't really see but suspect they are there right next to us. Ghostly realms. Cern is messing with these realms. Parallel realities. Terrance describes it better than I can. Fractal soliton.
@@pedro8861 I don't have a problem with your belief in spiritual stuff but you should understand when you are talking about science and when your talking about the metaphysical. This is a science channel but all your terminology is just metaphysical generalities. It doesn't mean anything in a scientific forum. "Realms" is not a term for a scientific discussion. Nor is "slightly out of 3d context". It's not really a question for a science discussion. It something to ask your psychic. LOL.
@@Robert08010 I worked with computers before they were called computers. A test station was on wheels, A test set could be carried around ones neck like a guitar. There performed simulations to confirm the equipment was at function ready. Ocilliscopes were used every day. No transistors but vacuum tubes and mechanical switches. I learned to never ignore certain things. It wasn't that long ago analog was replaced with digital. Have you ever wondered why? I can only say so much because it would be a waste of time communicating with anyone who would call it giggerish.
It's an amazing multiverse untiliseing Telorical Fields of course you are particularly comfortable with the word of the all the way I am as well looking for the signature of the mindset equally we have a long ways to go.
@@Jellyman1129 "Hundreds in our solar system" based on which definition of a planet? I though that if Pluto doesn't count based on current definitions, then how can you say hundreds?
@@Robert08010 There’s hundreds of planets in our solar system based on the geophysical planet definition. The IAU doesn’t consider Pluto or its siblings to be planets, but they haven’t even tried to define exoplanets. So what’s the better statement? Saying there are hundreds of planets in our solar system and billions in the galaxy? Or saying there are exactly eight planets in the entire universe? I’d go with the former.
The planet we find to inhabit will already be inhabited 👽
I feel that sometimes we assume that intelligence means to build craft and soar the universe. My gut tells me that this is our niche as humans and shouldn’t expect this outcome when looking.
If an intelligence has conquered its home planet for a certain purpose, they will continue to explore, or obtain resources, for the same reason. We were driven by our curiosity ne our will of exploration - who knows what it might be for aliens?
Valid point. I wonder if a planet that consists of one main species with no predators would be the same. Would this take away their aggression? If so would they feel the need to conquer?
When you factor in the vastness of the universe, I believe you are wrong. But that still leaves the question, will we ever be able to detect them as the maybe be several galaxies away.
The issue is the way our solar system is arranged is turning out to be very unique. Inner rocky planets and gas giants outside so the system orbits will be stable over long periods.
I don't see why you think its so unique. If accepted theory about how an ecretion disc turns into a star and planets is true, then many will look just like ours.
@@Robert08010 You missed the point. It's the arrangement of the planets that's a bit unique. The gas giants being outside the rocky planets saves them from getting pummeled by asteroids and comets and stabilized their orbits.
@@finscreenname No I haven't missed the point. I think that is a direct result of how long its been since the planets formed.
@@Robert08010 It has nothing to do with time or how old the solar system is. It comes down to how it evolved over that time period. Ours evolved differently than most cause a couple of the gas giants decided to exchange positions while clearing out all the space debris along the way. Something as simple as Jupiter being a tiny bit closer and we would have been slung off into space a billion years ago. Our star being a single star on its own is almost unique by itself.
@@finscreennamehow unique ? How many solar system do we know are Similar to us in our galaxy ?
And in other galaxy ? Do we know or are they just too far
Whilst It’s possible there may be plenty of microbial life the occurrence of technological civilisations may be far less than one per galaxy, which would explain the fermi paradox.
Your statement is nonsensical. You do not explain a theory by repeating the theory.
@@condor68y1 Nonsensical, how so? You do understand the Fermi paradox was posed as a question not a theory? That is: “where is everybody?“.
One possible answer to his question is the absence or the scarcity of technological civilisations within the universe.
@justgarry5485 Yes, but you offer no actual fact or argument. Drake equation takes major factors into account and calculates thousands are likely. Question is why we do not see/hear them. Just saying they do not exist is not helpful.
@@condor68y1 I did not suggest they do not exist; although they may not. I was simply making the counterpoint that they may not be at all common; there are some strong arguments for this. The rare earth hypothesis for instance this would suggest that planets capable of hosting intelligent life are extremely rare within the universe. Furthermore, it took around 3.5 billion years from life first appearing to get to multicellular organisms with the likelihood of several great filters along this journey. Additionally, the conditions that allow advanced intelligence to evolve are highly unusual. In our case a series of very lucky flukes. Of the 50,000,000,000 plus species which have ever lived on Earth only one has made civilisations. This line of reasoning is compatible with Drake’s equation and it is therefore not unreasonable to suggest the occurrence of technological civilisations may, and I stress may, be far less than one per galaxy, which would explain the Fermi paradox, although other explanations are of course possible.
@justgarry5485 Now that's a real argument, though there is good reason to believe it is hundreds to thousands. The numbers that are inputs into the Drake equation, especially the number of habitable zone planets, have gone way up since JWST and TESS began their work. And we have signs of life from several planets already. So even when we found 500 extrapolating that data says that of 500 billion stars 50% or more have a habitable planet. And 3 over 500, 0.6%, already have been shown to have indications of life. That's 3 billion planets in our galaxy as primordial pools. Only time will tell bur thing are looking good. 👌 I expect we will identify life in this decade now.
With a trillion, trillion stars ... if even one out of a trillion has life... that's a trillion life planets, right?
The idea that most stars had planets has been accepted since the 1970s, on angular momentum grounds. Getting photos of them just confirms it.
Fun fact: There exists a planet 600 light-years away that astronomers believe has a core made out of diamond and if sold, it would give every person in the world, including you and me, 260 trillion dollars, since it has a mass of 14 earths. But since it's so close to it's star, that it's being torn appart by the star's gravitational pull.
and another fun fact: There are at least 500 million planets that are in the habitable zone in the milky way. Venus and Mars used to have life in the planets.
How arrogant would it be to think we are the only intelligent life in our galaxy with a hundred billion habitable planets? Especially when we have already discovered organic matter on asteroids. It is clearly the vast distance that prevents communications and that could last forever. But the main variable in the Drake equation limiting the number of intelligent species in the universe for which we have no answer (other than ourselves) is: How long does an intelligent civilization live before destroying itself with technology? 😢
I think sufficiently advanced civilizations would be able to harness any technology so not a problem.
I am still waiting to meet an alien. Where are they all? Should be at least 1,000 different alien species to visit us. 😊
@lindsayscott4537 Personally I don't believe that will ever happen in our lifetime. The cost and distance of such trips is too high, and even at the speed of light could take generations living on spaceships. That said robot probes are possible 😳 Have you read about Von Neumann Probes? Google that. Far more practical scenario.
@@lindsayscott4537 they probably have visited before we were just way to primitive at the time.
Is it destroying itself or is it that technology so advanced will eventually completely change the existence of that species in terms of what we could understand or see. An alien race so advanced could have become nanotechnological or download their consciousness into an artificial reality - or maybe they are destroyed by AI but that AI would become far more advanced than the biological beings it replaced. There is also the possibility that a race could become so advanced that they can perceive higher dimensions and even see and perceive time as a physical dimension of direction in which case we would never be able to understand what they are, where they are, or if they've already visited.
20 billion planets. if one in a million actually had life, that would be 20,000 possible civilizations.
@Hewhoremains420 there are likely to be other civilisations in the universe as a whole but we may well be the only civilisation in the galaxy at this moment in time.
No, that would be 20,000 planets with life. Very, very different than civilizations. Fish are life, not civilizations. The hurdles from life to intelligent life are huge. Whales are intelligent life. So are birds. And virtually every other animal, of which more than 99% went extinct. Civilizations require communications, writing to pass down knowledge, the opposing digit (thumbs to use and make tools) and lots more.
And that's just in this galaxy.
And yet people can’t deal with more than eight in our solar system. 😂
How did you come up with the "one in a million" figure? Let us see your calculations and estimations.
Have you published your findings, BTW?
Can you extrapolate from this and approximate our chances of meeting an alien race that has six bewbs?
I'd be happy with three. We call them the Tri-boob-itops!
Actually our solar system is extremely unique in the sense that no other solar systems with as many planets as ours are known. There are 402 quantifiable and necessary characteristics of a planetary system and its galaxy that must fall within narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of advanced life’s existence. A slight increase or decrease in the value of any single one of these 402 characteristics would gravely impact that possibility. Remarkably only our solar system meets all of those extremely rare qualities out of all of the solar systems we’ve analyzed to date.
good chance we haven't found them yet. planets like mercury are close to their star and small, so it's gonna be hard to find them.
We have analysed almost a zero proportion of all planetary systems.. easy to forget there are a couple of trillion galaxies. The stupendously rare is commonplace. A thousand Lottery winning planets in just our galaxy, 2,000 trillion lucky winners in the visible Universe, assuming 1:20,000,000 are winning tickets, one ticket per star. Gosh.
Since our solar system is littered with dozens of planets, it’s likely planets outnumber stars 10:1 in our galaxy! 🪐
@@Jellyman1129 8 planets... I guess you mean moons?
@@tim40gabby25 No, I mean dozens of planets. Using the superior geophysical planet definition, large moons also count.
When was this interview
Realy I like this video so much
These planets are not our mother. Looking for Earth 2.0 is like having a chimp gestate and raise human embryos. But actually far more distant the chasm, in terms of biology, micro flora, etc
@Hewhoremains420 check out the rare earth hypothesis.
@Hewhoremains420 Does it frustrate you to not understand others? No need to be rude. Okay I will try to explain in simple terms, rather than metaphors. It is very unlikely that we will find a planet suitable for sustaining human life. It is far more reasonable to try and apply human ingenuity and technology to looking after the planet that we currently reside. An earth *like* planet will not have the same biochemistry, microbiome, or even biophysics, than the one that we reside on -- creating infinite hurdles for our survival.
@@peacefulmaroon I think based on statistics alone, there are Earth-like planets somewhere, so we will find one, if we keep looking. By the way, we’re looking for a planet that is just like earth, not one with different conditions(such as increased mass, too close proximity to its sun). If we give up now, we’re sure we won’t find a planet, and it indeed will be wasted resources. If we keep looking, we’ll find a new home, and it won’t be resources wasted.
Now, to summarise your point, I believe you said that “we should spend resources on our problems rather than spending them on exploration, because we haven’t met our goal yet.”
I think that exploring new homes is a necessity, because if we expand to other planets, we’d need an interstellar-level catastrophe to end humanity, leaving more opportunities for human ingenuity to solve problems like curing cancer.
We people are very special we all have a part to play in universe keep most powerful energy love ❤
Bro’s last name💀
Unfortunately, none of these objects qualify as planets. Do they orbit the sun? Nope.
Jupiter could have been a failed star...I wonder if it could ever light up
Not like a star, but in another way it is already glowing in infrared light (heat)
If Mars had intelligent life, in our history (when) would we have gone there?
There are no planets. Just stars. Prove me wrong.
Yes great news exciting future
We want be here to see when it happens but, the galaxy Andromeda is headed towards the milkyway. When it clashes with our solar system the sky will look unbelievable planets in close view to the naked eye. But the chances of earth even surviving that is very slim. It can be burned up by drifting nere by stars getting to close ect. Who knows but luckily we won't be here to experience it, I pray for those who will be here.
The Drake equation answers that.
The Drake Equation answers nothing until its variables are replaced with actual values.
They are ALL too far away to do us any good
You can imagine anything you want... It doesn't make it true.
The thing is, we’re not really imagining, rather, based on statistics and probability, there are Earth-like planets somewhere.
Listen carefully! In the very beginning of this video he said "You can imagine!"
@@olegkudryashov7954 I think he means, “you can picture”, and he tells us to picture things that we’re almost sure exist.
@@condor5912 "Almost sure", I don't think so. If the premise is wrong from the beginning, the result of calculations will be wrong. Even our planet life by all probabilities was not supposed to exist. The universe itself was not supposed to exist, therefore - the "Boltzmann's brain" scenario.
You can vote on how many planets the solar system has…it doesn’t make it true.
The Universe teems with life. We are not the centre of creation. From Galileo to the James Web telescope,a continuous ongoing discovery of the wonder and glory of God's creation !?
Why does every planet that could sustain life need to have water. Why can’t we conceive that life may exist in other types of environments. ???
I think it comes down to biodiversity. Think about how many different forms of life there are. It all started as microscopic life. When you look at how much easier it is for microscopic life to survive in the oceans and ponds, than on land, it seems likely that a planet with an ocean is a best chance to find something we might be able to recognize as "life".
THEY ARE NOT STARS THEY ARE PLANETS OUR SUN is A STAR 🤔
Could there be a twin earth that is slightly out of 3d context we don't see it? Yet it promotes life just slightly lighter in frequency than our more dense earth? McKenna/story time 2 vids describe this brilliantly.
No. You're mostly talking giggerish. "Slightly out of 3d context" and "lighter in frequency" means NOTHING in physics. That's only relevant is a scifi fantasy novel. "Twin earths"? What does that even mean? If you mean could another planet nearly identical to Earth exist in this solar system, sure but we already know it doesn't exist. What this video is about is the search for planets like the earth in other solar systems. The problem there is that we are still struggling to even detect bodied that small, let alone we can't actually see any yet so we don't know if they are actually "earth like", having water oceans, etc.
@@Robert08010 czcams.com/video/HLFSz5zCs5o/video.html
@@Robert08010 I was an electronic mechanic in the early 1970s. I've seen some strangeness. Any time I try to share my experience it sounds like giggerish. Even to me. It's like the Russian dolls that fit inside each other. Layers of reality we don't really see but suspect they are there right next to us. Ghostly realms. Cern is messing with these realms. Parallel realities. Terrance describes it better than I can. Fractal soliton.
@@pedro8861 I don't have a problem with your belief in spiritual stuff but you should understand when you are talking about science and when your talking about the metaphysical. This is a science channel but all your terminology is just metaphysical generalities. It doesn't mean anything in a scientific forum. "Realms" is not a term for a scientific discussion. Nor is "slightly out of 3d context". It's not really a question for a science discussion. It something to ask your psychic. LOL.
@@Robert08010 I worked with computers before they were called computers. A test station was on wheels, A test set could be carried around ones neck like a guitar. There performed simulations to confirm the equipment was at function ready. Ocilliscopes were used every day. No transistors but vacuum tubes and mechanical switches. I learned to never ignore certain things. It wasn't that long ago analog was replaced with digital. Have you ever wondered why? I can only say so much because it would be a waste of time communicating with anyone who would call it giggerish.
It's an amazing multiverse untiliseing Telorical Fields of course you are particularly comfortable with the word of the all the way I am as well looking for the signature of the mindset equally we have a long ways to go.
Maybe edit that when you're less high.
I was taught as a kid 9, now 8. Now millions! We don't know what's going on 🤦🏻♂️
You thought there were only 9 planets in the universe?
There’s hundreds in our solar system and millions in the galaxy.
@@Jellyman1129 "Hundreds in our solar system" based on which definition of a planet? I though that if Pluto doesn't count based on current definitions, then how can you say hundreds?
@@Robert08010 There’s hundreds of planets in our solar system based on the geophysical planet definition. The IAU doesn’t consider Pluto or its siblings to be planets, but they haven’t even tried to define exoplanets.
So what’s the better statement? Saying there are hundreds of planets in our solar system and billions in the galaxy? Or saying there are exactly eight planets in the entire universe? I’d go with the former.
Sick
None
why aren't there any in this 🤬 solar system? Huh?!