Few of the Universe’s residents are as iconic as the spiral galaxy. These limelight-hogging celestial objects combine whirling, pinwheeling arms with scatterings of sparkling stars, glowing bursts of gas, and dark, weaving lanes of cosmic dust, creating truly awesome scenes — especially when viewed through a telescope such as the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope. In fact, this image from Hubble frames a perfect spiral specimen: the stunning NGC 2903. NGC 2903 is located about 30 million light-years away in the constellation of Leo (The Lion), and was studied as part of a Hubble survey of the central regions of roughly 145 nearby disc galaxies. This study aimed to help astronomers better understand the relationship between the black holes that lurk at the cores of galaxies like these, and the rugby-ball-shaped bulge of stars, gas, and dust at the galaxy’s centre — such as that seen in this image.
For anyone to assume we are alone in the universe after reading this is seriously deluded. What are the chances of other humans out there ?
I would say very high. Do you think they are looking down on us here and wondering what the fuck are we doing?
For example, if life exists or did exist in some part of the universe that we can never detect it in any fashion, we would be in effect, alone.
If you include simple organisms like a single cell or partial cellular life, the odds definitely increase. Life after all, on this rock, has been for the majority of the time as simple organisms.
The more complex you get, like eukaryote cells, the less likely life exists elsewhere. Multi-cellular life forms become even less likely but still probable somewhere.
Sentient lifeforms would be far far less likely.
As for sapient life, well, as Richard Dawkins put it, known evolution has only produced sapience once, so sapience doesn’t appear to be a trait needed for self-replication. Flight has evolved numerous times in different forms as a counterpoint: we’re more likely to find flighted life than we are sapient life.
It also appears even in our own species we don’t rate intelligence that highly. Next year for example, when the “royal” wedding will be in full flight, NZers will vote for Ardern not for any intelligent reason but because of an emotional parade up some aisle.
All I meant was that the chances of other life out there somewhere must be fairly high. With more stars, planets and other bodies up in the universe, than there are grains of sand on our planet, who can deny this possibility?
Simple life is probable, probably almost certain. The more complex life becomes, the less likely those probabilities become.
Is there sapient life out there? The probabilities are dismal.
However, let’s assume there is or was or even will be. How would we discover it?
Space is big. You won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
The point I’m trying to raise is that assuming life is out there is just speculation.
It depends on what you mean by alone.
For example, if life exists or did exist in some part of the universe that we can never detect it in any fashion, we would be in effect, alone.
If you include simple organisms like a single cell or partial cellular life, the odds definitely increase. Life after all, on this rock, has been for the majority of the time as simple organisms.
The more complex you get, like eukaryote cells, the less likely life exists elsewhere. Multi-cellular life forms become even less likely but still probable somewhere.
Sentient lifeforms would be far far less likely.
As for sapient life, well, as Richard Dawkins put it, known evolution has only produced sapience once, so sapience doesn’t appear to be a trait needed for self-replication. Flight has evolved numerous times in different forms as a counterpoint: we’re more likely to find flighted life than we are sapient life.
It also appears even in our own species we don’t rate intelligence that highly. Next year for example, when the “royal” wedding will be in full flight, NZers will vote for Ardern not for any intelligent reason but because of an emotional parade up some aisle.
All I meant was that the chances of other life out there somewhere must be fairly high. With more stars, planets and other bodies up in the universe, than there are grains of sand on our planet, who can deny this possibility?
Then there’s thousands of years worth of the Godaddled sitting around on clouds & strumming harps.
Could be a bit crowded. 🙂
Simple life is probable, probably almost certain. The more complex life becomes, the less likely those probabilities become.
Is there sapient life out there? The probabilities are dismal.
However, let’s assume there is or was or even will be. How would we discover it?
Space is big. You won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
The point I’m trying to raise is that assuming life is out there is just speculation.
Wrecked the end italic tag, sorry.
There is more chance of seeing life out there than the is of ever seeing a sky fairy.