Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    23 Aug '16 16:02
    http://phys.org/news/2016-08-life-earth-early-cosmic-terms.html

    This work says possibly because we are the first or near the first which would explain everything and we won't find anyone because we are the first one to get techie in our galaxy.

    I imagine we would probably not be first but the gist of this work is in the past there was much less chance for life developing and in the future there is much more likelihood of life developing because of the availability of the stuff of life, more carbon, phosphorous, sulfur and the like.
  2. 23 Aug '16 16:30 / 1 edit
    Early rather than first is more accurate. There could well be many many other civilisations out there. All they are saying is that if there are many now, there will likely be many many more in the future. But as with all studies of life in the universe, with a sample size of one, there are still too many unknowns to make good predictions.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    23 Aug '16 19:11
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Early rather than first is more accurate. There could well be many many other civilisations out there. All they are saying is that if there are many now, there will likely be many many more in the future. But as with all studies of life in the universe, with a sample size of one, there are still too many unknowns to make good predictions.
    You think?
  4. Standard member apathist
    looking for loot
    26 Aug '16 09:12
    I doubt that we are special. But, I suppose, someone has to be?
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    26 Aug '16 10:21
    Originally posted by apathist
    I doubt that we are special. But, I suppose, someone has to be?
    Creationists would have a ball with this development...