The issue with the Drake equation is that it doesn’t factor in the fact that the cosmos changes over time and that there’s a lot of space that is hostile to life or doesn’t have the needed resources. Nor does it factor in the time required to evolve intelligent life
Earlier in the age of the universe, there was too much radiation and not enough heavier elements due to most on those elements being created in supernovae.
It wasn’t until recently that we have “goldilocks zones” in galaxies. Centers of galaxies have too much radiation due to how common more massive stars are there. Meanwhile, edges of galaxies never had enough material to drive lots of star formation, so they still don’t have a lot of needed heavier elements.
And the solar system is currently travelling through a massive bubble of relatively low density of material caused by a large supernova billions of years ago. That’s resulted in even less exposure to radiation for the entire time that life has existed on Earth. And add the fact that the Solar system’s orbital mechanics results in Jupiter shielding us fron tons of asteroid impacts.
The most likely solution to the Fermi Paradox is that we’re among the first instances of life in the universe
I think the most likely solution to the Fermi Paradox is that most of the things it’s looking for are actually impossible. FTL travel/transmission, planet-scale structures, passive radio emissions strong enough not to fade into the background radiation, all of the things that would reveal intelligent life from our meager vantage point on the edge of the galaxy either can’t be done or will never reach us.
Those asteroids you’re talking about are in the solar system, aka the galactic goldilocks zone I’m talking about.
And while yes, you’re going to fine building blocks of DNA in the inner portions of the galaxy but complex life isn’t going to develop there due to being hit by gamma ray bursts every few thousand years.
And as I said, the outer solar system doesn’t have enough materials to make a lot of large stars to produce much elements heavier than hydrogen. You get fewer rocky planets and an overabundance of red dwarfs. Red dwarfs are unstable, giving off a lot of solar flares and coronal mass ejections. And their habitable zones are so close that any planet in them would be tidally locked, which is bad for the development of life, because you’ll have one side that’s scorching hot and one side that’s freezing.
The problem is that so many people desperately want their to be life elsewhere in the universe that they’ll latch onto any feasible evidence they can find. It’s very hard to be unbiased like that.
Once I got a grasp of the probabilities given the size of the universe, I was all aboard the aliens are real train
My hang up is that really stupid people are able to keep it secret.
I’m on the FTL travel is impossible train. They exist, we can just never interact.
The issue with the Drake equation is that it doesn’t factor in the fact that the cosmos changes over time and that there’s a lot of space that is hostile to life or doesn’t have the needed resources. Nor does it factor in the time required to evolve intelligent life
Earlier in the age of the universe, there was too much radiation and not enough heavier elements due to most on those elements being created in supernovae.
It wasn’t until recently that we have “goldilocks zones” in galaxies. Centers of galaxies have too much radiation due to how common more massive stars are there. Meanwhile, edges of galaxies never had enough material to drive lots of star formation, so they still don’t have a lot of needed heavier elements.
And the solar system is currently travelling through a massive bubble of relatively low density of material caused by a large supernova billions of years ago. That’s resulted in even less exposure to radiation for the entire time that life has existed on Earth. And add the fact that the Solar system’s orbital mechanics results in Jupiter shielding us fron tons of asteroid impacts.
The most likely solution to the Fermi Paradox is that we’re among the first instances of life in the universe
I think the most likely solution to the Fermi Paradox is that most of the things it’s looking for are actually impossible. FTL travel/transmission, planet-scale structures, passive radio emissions strong enough not to fade into the background radiation, all of the things that would reveal intelligent life from our meager vantage point on the edge of the galaxy either can’t be done or will never reach us.
I had that view as well, until the discovery of the full range of nucleotides found in various asteroids.
Now it’s impossible for me to think that the universe ISNT teeming with various forms of life
You’re ignoring half of my comment
Those asteroids you’re talking about are in the solar system, aka the galactic goldilocks zone I’m talking about.
And while yes, you’re going to fine building blocks of DNA in the inner portions of the galaxy but complex life isn’t going to develop there due to being hit by gamma ray bursts every few thousand years.
And as I said, the outer solar system doesn’t have enough materials to make a lot of large stars to produce much elements heavier than hydrogen. You get fewer rocky planets and an overabundance of red dwarfs. Red dwarfs are unstable, giving off a lot of solar flares and coronal mass ejections. And their habitable zones are so close that any planet in them would be tidally locked, which is bad for the development of life, because you’ll have one side that’s scorching hot and one side that’s freezing.
The problem is that so many people desperately want their to be life elsewhere in the universe that they’ll latch onto any feasible evidence they can find. It’s very hard to be unbiased like that.
Oh my God you’re such a fucking asshole
Takes one to know one