Two 3rds of the planets have life.
Gnargenox wrote:Source of the post I think there is way way WAY too many instances of life being found
Gnargenox wrote:Source of the post I wonder if it is taken into account for determining the chances of life.
Gnargenox wrote:Source of the post If we are going to really look for extraterrestrial life, it should be away from the center of our galaxy.
DoctorOfSpace wrote:Gnargenox wrote:Source of the post I think there is way way WAY too many instances of life being found
Ever since the life listing was added this is something I have been saying. From a chemistry point of view the environments where life is found and the listing abiogenesis is given it makes very little sense.Gnargenox wrote:Source of the post I wonder if it is taken into account for determining the chances of life.
It's not but it should be in the future if realism is the goal.Gnargenox wrote:Source of the post If we are going to really look for extraterrestrial life, it should be away from the center of our galaxy.
And currently you can find systems with 7 planets with life in globular clusters. I don't know how limiting this would be possible in the engine, but I do agree with you on how rare life should be.
Regarding the galactic habitable zone that might not apply entirely. There is no guarantee, even with a high number of stars, that a planet will be hit by a GRB, so while it may be more probable it should still be possible to find life near the center of a galaxy.
Insanity wrote:Pretty sure this is the Farthest Galaxy from the Milky Way, RG 0-8-9586980-1138. From the center of the CBH (Central Black Hole), The Milky Way is 28.24 Giga Lightyears away.
DoctorOfSpace wrote:Gnargenox wrote:Source of the post I think there is way way WAY too many instances of life being found
Ever since the life listing was added this is something I have been saying. From a chemistry point of view the environments where life is found and the listing abiogenesis is given it makes very little sense.Gnargenox wrote:Source of the post I wonder if it is taken into account for determining the chances of life.
It's not but it should be in the future if realism is the goal.Gnargenox wrote:Source of the post If we are going to really look for extraterrestrial life, it should be away from the center of our galaxy.
And currently you can find systems with 7 planets with life in globular clusters. I don't know how limiting this would be possible in the engine, but I do agree with you on how rare life should be.
Regarding the galactic habitable zone that might not apply entirely. There is no guarantee, even with a high number of stars, that a planet will be hit by a GRB, so while it may be more probable it should still be possible to find life near the center of a galaxy.
Gnargenox wrote:Radiation is one thing still lacking in Space Engine. Even if it is not shown as a field, I wonder if it is taken into account for determining the chances of life. Perhaps only temperature, hours of light, atmosphere etc are part of the formula. I think there is way way WAY too many instances of life being found. I think the chances of finding a habitable, breathable planet suitable for humans but still devoid of life are astronomically higher in the real world. Pardon the pun.
On the role of GRBs on life extinction in the Universe
The most deadly kind, Long Bursts (over 10 seconds) of Gamma Ray radiation, occur when massive stars burn out, collapse, and explode. They are rarer than the short ones but release roughly 100 times as much energy. A long burst can outshine the rest of the universe in gamma rays, and occur mainly in star-forming regions with relatively low metallicity, or levels of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. If the explosion were close enough, the gamma rays would set off a chain of chemical reactions that would destroy the ozone layer in a planet's atmosphere. With that protective gas gone, deadly ultraviolet radiation from a planet’s sun would rain down for months or years—long enough to cause a mass die-off.
Some astrophysicists have suggested a gamma ray burst may have caused the Ordovician extinction, a global cataclysm about 450 million years ago that wiped out 80% of Earth's species. They find that the chance Earth has been exposed to a lethal blast in the past billion years is about 50%. The sheer density of stars in the middle of the galaxy ensures that planets within about 6500 light-years of the galactic center have a greater than 95% chance of having suffered a lethal gamma ray blast in the last billion years. Compared with the Milky Way, most galaxies are small and low in metallicity. As a result, 90% of them should have too many long gamma ray bursts to sustain life. What’s more, for about 5 billion years after the big bang, all galaxies were like that, so long gamma ray bursts would have made life impossible anywhere. If we are going to really look for extraterrestrial life, it should be away from the center of our galaxy. That's not to mention looking at stars other than the flaring Red Dwarfs.
Gnargenox wrote:Radiation is one thing still lacking in Space Engine. Even if it is not shown as a field, I wonder if it is taken into account for determining the chances of life. Perhaps only temperature, hours of light, atmosphere etc are part of the formula. I think there is way way WAY too many instances of life being found. I think the chances of finding a habitable, breathable planet suitable for humans but still devoid of life are astronomically higher in the real world. Pardon the pun.
On the role of GRBs on life extinction in the Universe
The most deadly kind, Long Bursts (over 10 seconds) of Gamma Ray radiation, occur when massive stars burn out, collapse, and explode. They are rarer than the short ones but release roughly 100 times as much energy. A long burst can outshine the rest of the universe in gamma rays, and occur mainly in star-forming regions with relatively low metallicity, or levels of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. If the explosion were close enough, the gamma rays would set off a chain of chemical reactions that would destroy the ozone layer in a planet's atmosphere. With that protective gas gone, deadly ultraviolet radiation from a planet’s sun would rain down for months or years—long enough to cause a mass die-off.
Some astrophysicists have suggested a gamma ray burst may have caused the Ordovician extinction, a global cataclysm about 450 million years ago that wiped out 80% of Earth's species. They find that the chance Earth has been exposed to a lethal blast in the past billion years is about 50%. The sheer density of stars in the middle of the galaxy ensures that planets within about 6500 light-years of the galactic center have a greater than 95% chance of having suffered a lethal gamma ray blast in the last billion years. Compared with the Milky Way, most galaxies are small and low in metallicity. As a result, 90% of them should have too many long gamma ray bursts to sustain life. What’s more, for about 5 billion years after the big bang, all galaxies were like that, so long gamma ray bursts would have made life impossible anywhere. If we are going to really look for extraterrestrial life, it should be away from the center of our galaxy. That's not to mention looking at stars other than the flaring Red Dwarfs.
[hr]
A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post The GRB has to be pointed in the right/wrong direction.
A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post There's no reason why inorganic life can't exist.
A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post We have no idea how rare life is because we're stuck in the boonies of a nondescript galaxy.
A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post There are also different degrees of life- microbial life, multicellular plant life, nonsentient animal life, and sentient animal life stuck to its own planet, and then you can conjecture from that point forward.
A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post If we find any signs of life elsewhere in our solar system- even microbial- that will actually give us more data to play with and increase the chances of life substantially.
A-L-E-X wrote:Insanity wrote:Pretty sure this is the Farthest Galaxy from the Milky Way, RG 0-8-9586980-1138. From the center of the CBH (Central Black Hole), The Milky Way is 28.24 Giga Lightyears away.
is that actual distance or comoving distance? I thought I read somewhere that in actual distance the farthest one we've found is 32 billion light years away.
DoctorOfSpace wrote:A-L-E-X, a bit extreme on the multiple posts, might be better if you condense it all into one post.
You can separate responses withCode: Select all[hr]
A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post The GRB has to be pointed in the right/wrong direction.
This is why I said it is no guarantee a planet or system will ever be hit, it is all pure chance.A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post There's no reason why inorganic life can't exist.
That is conjecture but I don't disagree. It seems more likely however that life will be similar to Earth life, at least in terms of chemistry given the availability of the materials in the universe.A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post We have no idea how rare life is because we're stuck in the boonies of a nondescript galaxy.
Until I see otherwise and given the current information on the formation of the Earth and how specific the situations had to be for self replicating molecules to form, I will assume that life is exceptionally rare.A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post There are also different degrees of life- microbial life, multicellular plant life, nonsentient animal life, and sentient animal life stuck to its own planet, and then you can conjecture from that point forward.
On Earth sure, but there is no guarantee outside of microbes that any of those things will happen on other planets. The move from single celled organisms to multicellular life took billions of years. The first known life was over 3bil years ago and in current records the first multicellular life didn't appear until around 600mil years ago. Given how long it took and how frequent mass extinction events occur, it is highly unlikely that we will find life and humans are probably a fluke.A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post If we find any signs of life elsewhere in our solar system- even microbial- that will actually give us more data to play with and increase the chances of life substantially.
This would be interesting but also damning to the notion of finding intelligent life. Statistically speaking if life is that common and we still haven't found any signs of intelligent life, it suggests there may be filters ahead of us and not behind. Finding life on Mars or other bodies in the solar system that isn't Earth life would not be a good sign.
A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post I actually believe the largest filters lay ahead of us not behind. Leaving this planet and exploring space might be the biggest filter of all.
DoctorOfSpace wrote:A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post I actually believe the largest filters lay ahead of us not behind. Leaving this planet and exploring space might be the biggest filter of all.
To me simple physics is a filter. Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong given enough time and complexity within a system.
Human population, while suggested to plateau around 2050 to 2100, is still growing as is our need for more energy. Extrapolating current growth rates you reach a point in the not too distant future we reach a point where energy available to the average human is in the Gigawatts to Terawatts range or greater, just imagine what could go wrong if the average person has that much energy available and in a population in the 10s of billions. Factor in today's problems of genetic engineering, nuclear research, fusion, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence and it starts to look like the game is rigged against long term survival of intelligent life.
It's nice to be optimistic about the future, but it is unlikely humanity will survive long term, or any intelligent species will. What is the Type 1 civilization equivalent to a nuclear meltdown or accidentally spilling your coffee on your keyboard? For that matter what happens when something goes wrong for a Type 2 civilization?