Originally posted by CeMar_Clone:
I used to believe that there was other life out there, but know I really doubt that there is. There is that formuala that predicts that there is a small % of planets that have life out there. Well in recent years, there have been additional variables that can be added to that equation that literally can reduce that formula to evn less then one planet in the entire universe (meaning we should not be here statisitaclly speaking). Sure there are billions of billions of stars, but what most people don't relalize is that most stars are in the so called death zones. If you look at most galaxies, they have central cores where the vast majority of the stars in that galaxy are. But in these cores, the stars are very close and the gamma radiation put off in these cores will fry EVERYTHING in those regions. On earth, our atmosphere protects us, but move the earth closer to the core of the Milkyway and even with an atmophere. all life on this planet would be fried by gamma radiation. The only reason we can exist is BECAUSE we are FAR from the galaxy center. So right off the bat, the vast majority of stars in the universe are in these core death zones, and have basically 0% probablity of life.
\
You're speaking of the Drake Equation and no there isn't any "new" variable that has reduced the chances of there being life out there. Planets do not have to be close to the parent star to support life, they just need an energy source and Jovian planets provide that with tidal forces(See Europa and its liquid oceans beneath the ice layer). You are correct that there are areas where life probably won't arise and in the cores of each galaxy, but we ourselves are only 26,000 light years away from that core, that galaxy is 100,000 light years across. There are hundreds of billions of stars in this galaxy which are located far enough away from the core. Beyond that, there are billions and billions of galaxies in the universe. While a majority of stars are in the core(very dense in there) there are plenty outside of it. Most of the stars we have studied for planets shows that planets, even in a conservative estimates, should exists around atleast 50%+ of the stars(more likely to be higher than that), and then you add on to the fact that stars can have many planets, and the chances of life improve.
The drake equation, even when used conservatively, still shows there should be atleast 10 other advanced civilizations in the milkway. Now 10 in 300 billion stars is like trying to find a needle in a hay stack. So it is not surprising that we, only having this technology for 50 years, haven't really begun the search. Also, remember, the equation is only counting 1 galaxy, there are hundreds of billions of galaxies.
Also, it is imporant to know that our magnetic field and our distance from the core doesn't shield us from these issues. If a star close to us goes supernova, we will be fried, and we won't know it went supernova until the Earth starts to fry. Beyond that, we are, even under a magnetic field, constantly bombarded by cosmic rays, which as a nice coincidence, also can cause genetic mutations and perhaps led to our evolutionary changes.
This post was edited on 4/4 1:08 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}