Why We are Alone in the Galaxy | Marc Defant | TEDxUSF
NOTE FROM TED: We've flagged this talk, which was filmed at a TEDx event, because it appears to fall outside TEDx's curatorial guidelines. The sweeping claims and assertions made in this talk are based on the speaker’s own theory and lack legitimate scientific support. TEDx events are independently organized by volunteers. The guidelines we give TEDx organizers are described in more detail here: storage.ted.com/tedx/manuals/t...
The origin of intelligent life on earth requires a host of statistically improbable events which may imply that similar intelligent life elsewhere is extremely unlikely, a fact mostly ignored in discussions about contacting extraterrestrial life.
“Marc Defant is a professor of geochemistry at USF and studies volcanoes through various funding such as the NSF and National Geographic. He has published research in Nature and other journals and has written a book on the history of the universe, earth and life. He was the keynote speaker at a conference on granitic rocks in China and was one of the first American scientists to work on volcanoes in Kamchatka when it was part of the Soviet Union. He is currently focused on emphasizing the importance of science in society.”
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
Not to mention the tilt in the axis, the Goldilocks zone location, the amount of water on the planet, and the electromagnetic field emanating from our rotation and magma core, etc, etc, etc. Life is extremely rare, and sentient life extraordinarily more rare, and our favorite pastime is killing and harming one another. This is dead solid perfect in his vision.
He left out many other statistical oddities, the two most relevant to me are: it turns out that our star, the sun, is not your average star, but an extraordinary calm G-type star in a Galaxy otherwise full of unsteady red-dwarf stars that probably won‘t allow for habitable conditions on their surrounding tidally locked eye-ball planets. It turns out that by sheer luck we happen to effectively live on a „double-planet“ system, where a extraordinarily large moon has not only slowed down the rotations speed of our planet, but also stabilized the rotation axis, has helped very much in creating not only a stable environment, but that tidal changes of ocean levels caused by the moon may have triggered life in the first place (and maybe is the cause we have plate tectonics and volcanism, which helped to renew our athmosphere and our crust).
Yes well, he only had 17 minutes but he said that there are hundreds of statistical oddities, and I think many more. Life is a very precious gift from the universe that becomes aware of itself. But if the multiverse is infinite, even only spatially, beyond the outer horizon, then everything must be accepted, and not only is life infinite, but even very similar and even identical copies of us. Sure, they'll be at distances you couldn't even write, but IF the multiverse exists, and it's infinite, they can't not exist.
Indeed the red dwarf stars are quite different from the sun and do not appear to be conducive for the evolution of life as we know it. The Earth appears to be a rare planet with the large moon, enrichment of uranium, thorium and phosphorus and the strong magnetosphere. We should search for Earth analog planets around F, G and brighter K type stars.
Also the impact event which formed the moon reset the initial rotation of earth - moon.
So if you visit say 100 other planets outside our Solar System then maybe there is something remarkable there. Now go and visit 10 billion and see if it remains remarkable. Incidently you dont even need to leave our Solar System to encounter another `double planet` system.
Once life evolves and circumstances permit it to survive for enough time it will evolve to better fit the circumstances and niche survival opportunities available. Because life is somewhat to very adaptable to many different sorts of environments and conditions, for it to evolve intelligence, conditions don’t have to parallel or match what exists on earth or in our solar system.
I often think about how life on earth is closer to its absolute end than its beginning, and the same goes double for multicellular life. If this is a golden planet and something like a human only emerges in a brief interval by the rarest of chances then yes, it's hardly ever going to happen.
I heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson once said that people who ask why haven't we found other life in the universe was like someone filling a glass with ocean water and asking where are all the whales? The universe is a huge vast open space filled with billions of galaxies that outnumber all the grains of sand in all the world's beaches. We can only see a small portion of the universe from earth.
Yes its huge but it is the same physics everywhere.
Imagine if you did that and actually scooped up a whale
@@fudgedogbannana maybe.
@@George.Coleman There could be a _whale_ of a time to be had for sure! 😛
@@Dawkinsbulldog that would get my _Seal_ of approval
Tedx: Where the greatest minds in the land give presentations in front of people who don't know how to record audio.
So true... There's more to setting up a mic and pa than just plugging it in. Bet that's all they did.. Is it on ok...yes.. Ok go!
The audio wasn't bad tbh
you seriously need to learn what a great mind is. this boy here is no evidence of a great mind but a great idiocy. wake up people!!!!!
@@VG-rj8pn What's your PHD in?
@FBI Guy No doubt
It happened at least once, given the immensity of our galaxy over the immensity of 13.4 billion years, it's statistically incomprehensible it hasn't happened thousands upon thousands of times.
What it is sure, with probability of 1, is that a First Civilization arose in the Universe, and that that First Civilization was (or is) alone being the only one that existed. Individuals of that First Civilization were (or are) saying _we could not be the only ones, the Universe is so vast._
Very simply, the statistics point to what happened here to be nearly impossible, except for this one time. Most likely, we are alone in the universe.
We need to find intelligent life on this planet before we look for it elsewhere. 😊
Oooof🔥😂🤣
@@kwnstudio1421 Why do you think the aliens call us "Earthtards" ? 😀
@@huruduru5144 Lol i never said that and who knows what they think of us if they are out there watching.
@@huruduru5144 , If you think that you are an Earthtard, keep it to yourself. The rest of us are NOT like you.
Unless you think the US Navy is fabricating the gun camera images taken by their fighter planes, then perhaps extraterrestrial life has already found us!
Finally, finally. The voice of reason. ALL of the evidence points to life on only ONE planet, this one. Life elsewhere is pure conjecture. The history of earth and the history of life that we know make it extremely unlikely that it could have happened anywhere else.
Indeed ! If anything he understated the case !
“Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.” Calvin and Hobbes
jlrinc but they cant
If they “were” on the same earth network connecting to have conversations if you were just on the moon it takes a full minute to send a message but this is only if you would be on the same “network” times that by maybe the biggest number you can think of... then communication would take that long to send a message to the location and back. But since the other organisms on the other planets they rather don’t have the technology or their devices don’t have access to what ever the network is on earth I don’t fully understand how network works on space to earth... that’s why
we forgot to send the wifi password with the voyager space probes
I like you tong in cheek answer. :)
Very very good point and and when you look at the gentleman who is currently the president of the United states it is clearly a logical conclusion. We are perhaps as a race of beings currently like a creature under a rock compared to other universal races.
In my humble opinion, time and distance are the biggest reasons why we haven't contacted INTELLIGENT life yet. There may have been countless life forms who evolved to something like bronze age, but were wiped out by extinction events over billions of light years of time and space.
and intelligent life that evolved beyond primitive radio wave communication after 5,000 years of development. Trying to find another civilization using a technology similar enough to ours that we would recognize it is like trying to see the registration number of an airplane at night from 4 miles away!
Totally correct, time is the key to everything in time everything is possible.....
We are definitely not alone but they are soooooooo far away.
Plus intelligent life might have wiped themselves out. They we’re here for a very brief moment in the great expanse of time. There technology may not be present in our region and in our brief time that we have been capable of detecting their signals.
@@thelikebutton3451 Your use of the word 'definitely' is definitely wrong. Without any evidence the answer must be that we just don't know. The lack of evidence, while not conclusive, does not bode well for the "there must be millions of civilizations crowd." Life could be incredibly rare...ie just us.
"The sweeping claims and assertions made in this talk are based on the speaker’s own theory and lack legitimate scientific support." Lack of scientific support? Who flagged this talk? This guy makes perfect sense and he stated only a few of the hundreds of random events that had to take place in a particular place at a particular time in order for us to exist. Another example is the collision of the Indian land mass and Asia, which formed the Himalayas. This mountain range absorbed much of the atmosphere's CO2 which cooled the planet and creating just the right amount of ice and temperature to support the current 7 billion population. There are many more random events that were necessary for intelligent life to exist.
highly unlikely != impossible like the speaker said, a lot of unlikely events had to happen for us to be here, yet we're here, and if it can happen once then it can happen again else where in another time. The known universe is billions of years old and it's A LOT larger than what we see, that improves the odds for intelligent life. thank you for coming to my ted talk
O2 in the air is distributed randomly. But it doesn't need to be. It can all move to the corner of the room. The math for that happening can happen and its about as likely as there being other life. Which means yes it is possible but its so rare that it would be like winning the lottery trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of times in a row. its not worth even rationally considering.
@@aguyfromnothere those odds are nothing on the cosmic scale.. we havent even explored a tiny % of our galaxy for intelligent life , and there are quadtrillions of galaxies , maybe even infinite amount of galaxies and planets out there so I think life isnt really that rare of a event if you look at the BIG picture. Think of like this, saying that we are the only intelligent life out in the universe is the equivalent of taking a cup of water from the ocean and saying that there is no fish in there
@@aguyfromnothere O2 cannot just "all move to the corner of the room"!! Jeezus!! Life forms the same as all things in the universe: when its components are together, they do what they do because they have no other choice. Then from the earliest life onwards, intelligence is heavily rewarded. Mammals and even SOME humans are smarter than the dinos were when the Cretaceous comet hit. The Cretaceous dinos were smarter than the Triassic dinos from shortly after the Permian comet hit. The pseudosuchians and other reptiles of the Permian were smarter than the insects of the Carboniferous. And so on.
@@user-pu1mu9ph6b It probably does exist elsewhere in the universe but almost certainly not in our galaxy or even our cluster group, and for all intents and purposes that means it might as well not exist at all
The universe is not old enough for the evolutionary process to occur successfully with an infinite number of chances. There is a limit to the time available after the big bang.
Wow .This guy is amazing .To prove how intelligent life is rare just look at the comments section.
Great comment
Yours being one of them.
Yes, amazing man but not very intelligent.
@@larslarsen8010 - Explain why, in your opinion, the man isn't intelligent. Or are you one of those types who write "This sucks!" without the ability to back up your claim?
@@donmiller2908 The reason is that this man is uninformed have listened to fake news and is full of false data. He's not able to sort out all the lies from the truth. That's stupidity.
Maybe intelligent life is just too separated and interstellar travel too difficult.
Yep, occams razor. This is basically the answer to the Fermi Paradox yet people like to speculate science fiction all day because it sparks their childish imaginations and gives them hope we will get to trade memes with aliens in another solar system.
Yes. Abiogenesis is statistically almost impossible, interstellar distances are too large, intelligence will be rare maybe less than 1 per million galaxies, the galaxies are flying apart at impossible speeds and light speed communication (let alone travel) is way too slow at the cosmic scale. We are alone forever. But that’s ok and there’s no harm in looking. Just in case
Give us 100 years and we will sort it all out
yep that's the highest probability why we never say them
Andrew Cliffe maybe the aliens are just a bit busy at the moment and we just have to wait until they have decent spaces enough in their calendars to come and see us. I mean what are we going to say to them anyway when we finally meet them? Has anyone got this properly planned out yet? I’d hate for us to disappoint the aliens when they arrive with nothing planned or even a decent cup of tea or something....you know...
One thing is for certain. Either we are alone or we are not alone. I think it would be far more extraordinary if we were alone.
Fact stranger than fiction... Read book. Rare earth
I have little doubt that life exists elsewhere. However, intelligent life capable of developing advanced technologies is likely very rare. We've only had the communication capability for less than one hundred years. SETI has been in operation about 60 years. So the messages sent have travelled 60 light years. If we encountered a species willing and able to answer, it would have to have been within 30 light years of Earth. If the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe for objects, interstellar travel is likely to be exceedingly rare because it would take generations of any species to travel great distances through space. We won't even be able to communicate with anyone out of our very local neighborhood. There may be billions of planets throughout the universe capable of supporting intelligent life, but not all within the same time frame. Let's continue to explore space, but manned missions are not practical beyond our solar system. Let's preserve life on this planet. With an infinite (for all practical purposes it is infinite) universe, improbable events occur with great frequency, but the odds of improbable events happening very close together in space are very small.
Assume generously for a moment that every star in the observable universe has 1 habitable planet. That leads to roughly 10^25 habitable planets in the observable universe. I did a calculation sometime back that led me the conclusion that the probability of intelligent life arising on a habitable planet (abiogenesis + intelligence) was 10^-55, which is less than the number of habitable planets by order of 10^30. This pretty much means that Humans are the only intelligent life not only in the observable universe but possibly also in the un-observable universe twice it's size.
I absolutely hate when someone thinks that life can only happen the way it happens on earth...I understand that it's all we know but why limit the possibilities of a universe that seemingly is infinite.
I guess you just didn't get it, did you? Iisten again.
Perhaps the point of the talk was to acknowledge the truly awe inspiring set of events (of which he only mentioned three) that improbably resulted in each of us and to urge each of us to simply appreciate how precious each individual life is. One does not, and Marc does not, invoke creationism to ponder and grasp, with enthusiasm, the profound significance of just some of the events that led to us any more than Carl Sagan did in his observations and writings. Suggest some of these folks get their noses out of the air.
No that's not what he's saying at all. He's trying to argue that the long sequence of specific events that are in the history of life on Earth before humans are necessary for intelligent life to form. TBH it would be better if he WAS trying to make a theistic argument out of it, instead he has to go and demonstrate for all to see that creationists aren't the only idiots in town. And his argument itself still sounds EXACTLY THE SAME as the creationists' arguments, their formula is "look at these unlikely things that must happen in order to get to now, I can't imagine all that happening without the guiding hand of a god, therefore god did it all". All he's doing is replacing the final conclusion at the end with "therefore there is nothing else like humans in the galaxy".
He didn't exactly analyze all the bad luck we might have had. I'm wondering if our type of warm organic life is rare, but superconductive life could be common.
@@medexamtoolsdotcom uh, no...a creationist argument doesn't involve a long series of unlikely events. as the name implies, it simply involves humans being directly created fully formed in their modern state. that's pretty much the opposite of what he lays out.
The "Rare Earth theory" is very compelling given the low probability of multitude of events that had to happen just right for us to emerge as an intelligent species. But I still think that the vastness of Universe and a number of stars and planets results in a much more compelling odds that the series of events that resulted in us, could have happened many times throughout the history of the Universe...
The rarity of our existence is just as vast as the universe.
@@goodkrypollo1706 not if we find microbes on Mars and Europa. 3 instances of life in a single solar system? That makes us common.
yet the improbability of intelligent life is just as big as planets and stars in the universe from the forming of eukariote cells fromm prokariot cells (the lucky chance one form of prokariot cell (bacteria) enteing another bigger one and living in symbiosis and the reproduction forming new symbiotic cells doing the same) without that there be only single cell life... 1 in a kazillion chance should mention too that there was no oxigen on earth and somehow a algea formed that changed out atmosphere to contain oxigen.. that life needed for better energy creation within cells.without this event there would not be the life as we know it multiple near life extinction events (the dinosaurs dying from the impact is one of about 5 to 6 events we know of that could have ended all life) the fact this planet has a magnetosphere due to iron core saving out planet from having atmosphere stripped off also a mars size planet hit earth and the crash split a part of and formed the moon that we need to out weathersystem and tides. that life needs also relise 99% of all lifeforms have seized to be... they are extingt... the 1 percent is what is left and that contains 8.7 million different forms of life currently on this planet right now from that 1 percent that is the 8.7 million different forms of life there is only one that is really inteligent (to understand most of the universe) and that is us improbability upon improbability
@Mike Bronicki - I hope we do find microscopic life on other worlds within our solar system. But, I don't think it changes the probability of intelligent life, elsewhere in the cosmos. If intelligence exists elsewhere, it's likely much too far away in distance (and in time) to ever be discovered, much less encountered. For all intents and purposes, our world is singular in its uniqueness.
Plus: An exceptionally stable sun; stable, nearly circular orbits for all major planets; two large gas giants far from the sun so they attract comets and meteors; a collision with a Mars-sized planet that yielded our moon which stabilized our earth’s rotation; the collision also liquified iron so that the liquid iron would sink and form a core that gives us our magnetic field that protects our atmosphere; the presence of phosphorus, a relatively rare element in most of the universe. There are more, but if each of these constitutes a fortunate outcome, the sum of these improbable events must extraordinarily improbable.
Another improbable event that might have been necessary was that the earth has a moon with the correct tidal pull.
Gets more complex...take magnesium from earth and no humans ..take potassium from earth no humans...take vitamin c from earth no humans...on and on and on...the creator left nothing out ..strong case for intelligent design
And is hollow
I think what he means at the end is that intelligent life is super rare, not regular forms of life...
Life itself is an extremely rare almost impossible thing. Life was formed on earth under conditions that do not exist now, and life would not be created under current conditions. He mentioned only 3 of at least dozen highly improbable (as in 1 in a billion) events that had to take place: supernova, existence of planets of the right size/type, development of chemistry supporting life, biogenesis, DNA/RNA, photosynthesis, cell nuclei / mitochondria (from symbiosis), cambrian explosion, etc. It's reasonable to conclude that intelligent life is a one-in-a-many-trillions event.
When I was a kid, we thought planets were an extremely rare, almost impossible thing. But it turned out that was only because we hadn't learned how to spot them yet. Now we assume they're almost everywhere.
Patrick McGuinness what evidence are you basing this assumption on? We don't have a clear understanding of HOW life began here...yet you now find it everywhere. Unless you have a galactic survey handy, I'd recommend keeping an open mind. Not too long ago (25 years) people were claiming that Earth was "Unique" in the universe! Just a few decades later, that claim is well and truly busted.
Earth still is unique, in the known universe at least.
Of course the same conditions don't exist now, life in general has completely altered the planet from initial conditions. IE oxygen catastrophe. The chemistry isn't all that special. The chemical makeup of our bodies matches the universe, save for helium (which is inert). In order of frequency, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen... Life doesn't appear to be picky. No special blend of 11 herbs and spices. Supernovae are common in the universe, nothing special there. Estimated to be 30 PER SECOND in the observable universe. You don't need multiple supernova, you only need one to salt a nebula and cause the collapse. Remember the ratio of elements I mentioned? A large star ready to go supernova is going to have this breakdown. An extra percent (or even 10 percent) of carbon or iron isn't going to break the chemistry of life. (again, oxygen catastrophe being a perfect example) The geologic record of the Earth demonstrates life existed almost immediately after the initial conditions allowed for the chemistry to exist. That doesn't support your assertion that life is rare or difficult. That suggests that life is probable. Life appears to have taken the easiest route! Your other misconception is that life elsewhere must match the metabolism (mitochondria, photosynthesis) or instruction (RNA/DNA) used on Earth. How do you know our way, is the only way? Basically, we don't know. And I'll argue that two other planets in our solar system, Mars and Venus, came damn close to having early conditions well suited for life. In fact there is a chance (perhaps even some weak evidence) that Mars once had life early on. Summary... the assumptions used to justify the rare earth hypothesis are wrong
My personal belief is that microbial life is probably common in the universe but intelligent life is incredibly rare. Being that the universe is sooo vast, the conditions that lead to life occurring must be prevalent- on universal distances not human ones. But the conditions that need to remain somewhat static to allow for intelligent life to evolve make that probability much more rare.
@notfiveo Makes me think of a line from a song in the Monty Python movie, "The Meaning of Life." It goes, "...and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space, because there's bugger all down here on earth."
You jumped straight from microbial life to intelligent life, as if those were the only two options available. My cat is not amused.
There was another TED speaker, I forget who, who also said that microbial life was probably common but that intelligent life was rare.
ll the evidence we have so far is that any life is rare. Every life on our planet came from one cell, and in billions of years this one needed cell only happened successfully once, and we know this planet works for life. All this and we haven't even found a way to deliberately create a life-form unrelated or unrelated to that original DNA. Primitive life wasn't covered by the lecture, but it is yet another incredibly unlikely event, and we have all the evidence of that.
@@DieFlabbergast On the scale of microbe to intelligent life a cat is almost at the human end of the scale - although as many people have pointed out, humans are not the endpoint of the evolutionary process.
One of the better TED talks. Well done. Reminds me of 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞 𝐒𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞, written by Paul Davies,who has the same view of the improbability of advanced,tool using life emerging. Got it from my local library.
The existence of extremophiles tells us that life is common everywhere
@@Pelgram Yes,but not advanced tool using beings,just simple life. Europa might be teeming with animal life in it's deep water oceans.
@@mikedunn7795 you can't know that. If there is simple life it is more likely than not there will be complex life too. The idea that Earth alone in the entire Universe has complex life belongs in the middle ages and should stay there
I'm fascinated by anything that furthers our understanding of the Fermi paradox/Drake's equation. I also can't disagree with the statistical uniquenesses he presents here that contributed to the unlikely arise of intelligent human life on Earth. I'm just not convinced that we should accept that our particularly circuitous pathway is the only possible pathway to intelligent life.
There's probably other paths to life, or other forms of life out there, so there are unknowns there. But there are probably far more unknowns with what makes life possible. He mentions only a few, but say they are only a few examples of many, much of which may be unknown to us currently. I would posit there are more unknowns with things that can prevent life from forming than paths to intelligent life.
@The Great Gazoo Nope, The answer could be one.
@The Great Gazoo That's not how math works. Time might be infinite, but it does not mean everything will happen (or one of us will magically reappear for a second at some arbitrary time in the future). This is because there are also an infinite number of possibilities, as an example, for something as simple as the relative position of two atoms. So once the last structures are destroyed in the universe, an infinite amount of time can just be an infinite number of different positions of photons. You can also have an infinite repetition of something. None of these are inconsistent with a universe going on forever.
I agree. If intelligence has survival value, and greater intelligence enhances the chance of survival, then there could be many ways that intelligence as great as ours, or greater, could evolve. They don't all necessarily involve asteroids and rift valleys. Dr. Defant also speaks of "life" and "intelligent life" interchangeably. But SETI is only designed to detect intelligent life, and only that subset of intelligent life that communicates using radio waves. There could be a Leonardo Da Vinci on TRAPPIST-1e and we would not know it. The search for extraterrestrial life is done by instruments such as the James Webb Space Telescope, which looks for the absorption spectra of molecules associated with life in the atmospheres of planets that orbit other stars.
You're right, this guy is very narrow-minded. I'm sure there are other ways he never dreamed of!
I think life in the universe is common but just basic life. I think complex life and intelligent life is very rare but I think it’s out there. The problem is the distances between intelligent life is so vast that they never make contact with each other.
And the time frame...
You're forgetting the alien abductions and probings....
Reasonable comment
@@davenotdoug8394 - Lol!
I don't agree that intelligent life "is very rare". Kind of like saying purple is very rare. I see intelligence as part of a spectrum of life. If it can exist AT ALL, then it is on the spectrum and therefore all-present as potential. True, we can't see gamma rays, but they were always there as a potential discovery. Also, distances/time in space are, once understood and manipulated by a sufficiently advanced civilization, of little hindrance. Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
While all of his points were valid and quite probably true, there is one fact that brings into question the rarity of life. The fact that the very first instant that conditions were suitable to life here on Earth, life began.
???????????
Stunning ... ! Brilliant .. ! Well spoken and makes perfect sense .... I love how everything is neatly tied together so that a layperson can understand it. Well done.
@@anthonyv6962 Well, that may be true, but I don't believe Mr. Defant is making the argument that all life considered needs to be a life form like us .... He is suggesting that the reason SETI can't find any life forms is because of how amazingly improbable the chain of events that had to take place which helped humans get here is also probably the same for other non carbon based forms of life in the universe. It seems you are trying to discredit his science for a point he's not even trying to make.
@@JEMCC I think Defant is not understanding just how _big_ the universe is, and how many different ways life may arise. Amazingly unlikely things happen all the time. There may even be other life in our own solar system right now, on one of the moons of the gas giants, and there's a very reasonable chance that Mars once had some type of life on it. So, consider how many other solar systems there are in our own galaxy alone, and then multiply that by all the galaxies out there. So, we know life _can_ arise (since we are an example of it), and we know there are trillions and trillions and trillions of other chances for it to arise, so it seems more likely to me that life in various forms exists throughout the universe, and some of those instances are bound to survive long enough for some type of intelligence to arise, maybe something so smart that they wouldn't consider us to qualify when they went looking. :) Basically, I think Defant's approaching this issue with a clear bias, and offering an apology that is a little akin to the (quite silly) Cosmological argument for god.
@@JEMCC Yes, great speech and I just think that for us to be here is obviously a will.
@@aerocap are you suggesting this is God’s will? All these improbable events are somehow the will of God? The exact opposite is what’s happening here. Science is slowly and surely disproving the existence of any and all Gods. And the sooner the better.
@@JEMCC Yes it's what I meant. On the opposite, to me it seems to become more and more obvious.
It is nearly impossible that we're alone in the universe. That we are, in fact, HERE is proof enough, given what is known about the size and composition of the universe.
' Nearly "......Hmmm...?
One problem with detecting intelligent life, similar to ourselves, is time. Humans have only been advanced technologically enough to register for about 100 years. If there was another civilization orbiting a star similar to the Sun at an equivalent level to us, they would have be within a 100 light year radius for us to possibly detect them. 500 light years out and there is no way we would have received their signals, yet. If we did, then they would be even far more advanced than us, or extinct. Consider this 100 year span. Now consider the age of the just our galaxy. Another intelligent species could easily have started a million years ahead of us. Or will start a million years hence. Time, combined with the speed of light, works against us finding other intelligent life.
People forget that time is just as vast an obstacle as space is to detecting others. Good point!
That's assuming no intelligent life survives for long after technological advancement. Otherwise every single rock in the galaxy would be colonized by now.
Trying to find another civilization using a technology similar enough to ours that we would recognize it is like trying to see the registration number of an airplane at night from 4 miles away!
well the speaker does not seem to consider this jmtnvalley lol hes forever harping on about dinosaurs pfff tiresome
What if there was a signal sent 500 lightyears away from us 500 years ago? But you are right that distance narrows the odds of noticing.
Corrected title: 'Why We are Probably Alone in the Galaxy'.
Hiiiighllllyyyyy improbable
@@AngadSingh-bv7vn aahh thank you, I almost lost hope. Now can you please present everyone your evidence.
"Life is rare, life is so precious, and we need to taka advantage of it." Marc Defant.
Life is rare. Life is precious. But can life survive 100 million barrels of oil being burned every day? It's not going to stop any day now.
@@kensanity178 erm, yes it can.
@@ArmaturaRecords wrong answer. 100 million barrels is 5 billion pounds of oil. That's EVERY DAY. No, life cannot survive that. First powerful storms get more powerful and more numerous. Then the ocean water levels start going bbn up. Methane hydrate at the ocean floor starts to turn into a gaseous state, this precipitates a runaway greenhouse effect. No life survives that. I didnt just make this up. Its fact.
He's presuming that the way life evolved on Earth is the only way it can happen anywhere. Very miopic for such an intellect.
Don Walker exactly dude
Such a smart guy..... such a weak and poorly defended proposition.
Don: You've got that exactly right. I liked this first time that I saw it, but I rewatched tonight and not so sure I like what he is saying. I think of someone who is very RELIGIOUS, and they sound just like this guy. Meaning, that what he is expousing is his religion (or more -- his views) and beliefs about how we became us. No, I don't think just the Rifts in Africa could have gotten apes out of the trees. Many apes might have got out of the trees by many different way. Okay, killing off the dinosaurs, it could have happened by a virus too -- didn't but could have. Then, smaller life would have sprung up. Say the metorite killed most everything off; well, some places would have small remnants of life, so it would have come back. What he has said is VERY MYOPIC (as Don said), and I agree that what he is saying sounds more like HIS THOUGHT-PROCESSES only and sounds like a RELIGIOUS look at it -- more than a scientific look. Life will survive, grow, evolve, and overcome when it has the opportunity ... Fortuitous and helpful circumstances surely happen throughout the universe.
are the laws of physics different somewhere else?
Idk, doesn't seem like there's life that we could EVER know about, unless they travel TO earth on a ship for what, a few billion years??
Damn the lady doing the hand signs for the deaf people is a savage If she can keep up with this man's pace
shes a sav
She`s skipping a lot. She has to be.
@@UndergroundIndigenousPrimate noooooo. She's doing sign language in cursive.
A very plausible hypothesis and it makes it even more horrendous the way our present actions may lead to our extinction. We would be a brief flash in the pan. Intelligent life is such a rare and precious thing.
Ted talks generally leave me cold. Most speakers can't reach, grab and hold my attention. Or beat out and lead me along a well defined train of thought. And I AM scatterbrained! So the fact that he did all of the above superbly is no mean feat.
A lot of commenters here have clearly never heard of the anthropic principle, which is actually quite a tricky concept to get your head around. Douglas Adams, who wrote 'The Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy' explains it best: “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
Sounds like an egocentric fallacy.
Not really...turns out humans can't produce even a single cell much less DNA....so your analogy isn't relevant...while we can dismiss the bible as fiction that doesn't dismiss a creator
@@powerdriller4124 which is why Douglas Adams was a genius. A sophisticated version of the "which came first, chicken or egg" conundrum.
If life happened once(which it did) then the word impossible can never apply again to that occurrence and even possible becomes likely.
"which it did". How can you assert that? We can't possibly know yet
@@MijinLaw life did happen once because we are alive, duh.
@@Withnail1969 I thought it was saying life occurred once in total. Misread it because most of the other comments were agreeing with the video.
Basically because there is a god who was responsible of our existing. This lecture is a huge slap in every atheist
@@idanime1514 there is no evidence god exists.
I’m glad to see his enthusiasm about life and how rare it is. I agree with everything he said and we really should take advantage of the gift of life.
Depends of definition of "LIFE" itself. If Life is a form of molecular existence based on food-chain type of energy exchange, there may be completely different "life forms", not necessarily carbon-oxygen based. But the Intelligence itself is only one. There is only one ABSTRACT INTELLIGENCE. It has only one form based on REASON and LOGIC. Physics, mathematics, chemistry etc. all are exactly the same, no matter at which point of space-time they manifest themselves. Nature itself is interested in finding and developing any food-chain energy exchange, so at some point it can INSTALL that abstract intelligence into the most complex "life-form" of that food chain. That organism further develops itself with the help of Nature, until it sets itself apart from the rest of living organisms of that system (like humans did on Earth in the last 40-50 thousand years). "Gift Of LIfe" in our understanding here on Earth may be completely different that in another system. We just have no proof of its existence, because we are still too primitive to discover anything solid. We just barely scratched the surface...
@@KrystofDreamJourney You started off well and then got weird.
Even if we're not alone we're still alone because there's no way to travel vast distances at high speeds without slamming into some debris along the way
Marc Defant's presentation on this topic of "the extraordinary rarity and improbability of intelligent life (you, me, and all of us here on this little planet)" is very cogent and reasonable. I'm in agreement to this point of view of how it all came about. Moreover, I'm in agreement that our life is incredibly precious, and that we have a unique opportunity to work and grow and live together and advance our technology and nurture the resources around us, rather than tear ourselves apart in the name of greed and religion.
It's too late! We've already elected Trump over a year ago!
@@111Renegade111 - So, you're happy with JB as president?
@@achaille9110 Never fails that there's always something that will try to disturb the peace by braying.
@@huizhechen3779- 'Something' or someone?
It could also be that intelligent life HERE took an unusually long time to get going for all the reasons that were stated and it is more abundant than not.
If civilization is abundant, this galaxy will be full of cacophony of Radio waves, microwaves, infrared waves, and Dyson spheres, other massive construction which should be easy to detect.
Just curious: does TEDx have a list of talks that have been flagged for similar reasons? I would be very interested in to see it.
He left off the most remarkable coincidence; the impact of Theia had to be at just the right angle & velocity to create our large moon. Other planets have evidence of large impacts: Mars definitely, Mercury & Uranus probably, Venus & Neptune maybe; & we've seen impacts on Jupiter. Yet except for maybe Pluto, not one of them produced a large moon. Our Moon maybe have been important in abiogenesis, & certainly helped to stabilize climate to allow evolution to occur.
GREETINGS, EARTHLINGS!
If you landed on the planet Greet, you would say GREETINGS, GREETLINGS!
Here's a thought experiment: Suppose we have the ability to do interstellar travel at some velocity that would actually get us to some dozen light years or so away with any survivability: We can see right now thousands of GALAXIES which amounts to about a trillion stars that might have planets...how would we even begin to pick out one to target? The same problem has to present to a civilization to one a few light years away...what chance would WE have of being the 'chosen' one?
In my thought experiment..they choose them all over time.
We are definitely not alone in this infinite sized universe. We are just not smart enough to figure it out with out limited technology.
There are a lot of comments on here trashing him for his "assumptions" and insulting his intelligence. Yet none of those commenters have provided any evidence or even a logical argument his claims. The general response is, "These are all assumptions, intelligent life is common because I think it is and the universe is huge." (paraphrased of course)
Hmmm, he finds it remarkable that the planet his species evolved on has perfect conditions for his species. Rather circular reasoning don't you think? I wonder if , maybe , there's a silica based life form on a planet out there some place, breathing methane at -200 degrees, who is also amazed by the fact that the planet his species evolved on has perfect conditions for his species.
t Luke McGregor : ryt ! (-Tx!)
Silicon is not as abundant as carbon and carbon has better structure bonds, no intelligent life can breathe methane.
@Dece, That we know of. The point of the comment was that life develops relative to the environment.
+Amarandum Valadamaris No we know this to be true, intelligent life forms have a brain and a brain uses a lot of energy and oxygen by far is the single best element to create vast amounts of energy during metabolism. Learn biochemistry. We have microbes on earth that breathe carbon dioxide, sulfur, but observations have shown since they do not utilize oxygen they never produce sufficient energy levels to develop complexity.
I think his explanation is why we as homosapeans exist and how we came about which is rare...the evolution is not stopped with us...it continues...who knows what will evolve out of us?????????
Great video. Good thought process. I see his point. BUT, I do not agree. He believes that intelligent life such as humans can occur ONLY in one PARTICULAR way. But the same, or even similar result, or for all you know, a better result could be achieved with a different recipe.
you make a good point. thanks.
I do not think you see his point though. Of course you could say, how do we know intelligent life could not occur through a myriad of other pathways? That question is always on the table, but it is pure conjecture. What is the basis for saying it could or could not? The fundamental, humble presupposition is not that the way we were made is the only way toward an intelligent life form, but rather, that we are the simplest intelligent life form that can exist. WE are our standard. Given that, the probability of our emergence constitutes a threshold for intelligent life and that is the point of what Marc is talking about. The fact that our emergence is dependent on all of these statistically improbable coincidences (or whatever you wish to call them) shows how intelligent life is not going to be commonplace across the galaxy, if the galaxy holds to all the fundamental concepts of physics, chemistry, and biology that we have gleaned from our rock in the cosmos. I suppose the easiest way to answer your own thought would be to ask yourself, how else could it occur? Can you devise some way that you could arrive at intelligent life in a simpler way than what we have on Earth? Precisely coordinated evolutionary events would be the only way, but you would need a tremendous amount of power, knowledge, and foresight to be ablet to even think to attempt such a thing. So basically, if you are God, then yes. There probably is a better way, ha ha.
@@shawnbydalek4153, obviously you see humans as the highest(and only) intelligent beings around in this vast(!) universe. Why so sure? Where do you have your "certain visdom" from...who provided it? Unless you'r actually "the all seeing God" you have to stick to what science believes to be likely...this far. As science is ever evolving something new is discovered(almost) endlessly. In other words science's not complete, done, finished or even over or certain, even on this topic, thus neigther are you...😉 "Always be sceptic with an open mind" ⚔️
@@oddvin31 What are you talking about man, ha ha? All I gave was an argument to explain why Rishi was mistaken, or missing Marc's point, however you prefer to think of it. I suppose if you think I was wrong, I would love to hear why, but I took no position on the subject of intelligent life in the universe. I just think Marc's argument is very sound and it is easy to misrepresent exactly what it is that he is saying. I studied chemistry, so that is the background lens that I view things from, and you are making a big mistake when you say you need to follow what science believes to be likely, especially as it regards grandiose topics that cannot be studied in the traditional sense (replication under controlled conditions to isolate a single variable). I always try to look at good data, get different perspectives from different places, and then make an informed decision. I do not claim certainty, only a grasp of what is probable, and then I make an argument to support my conclusion. I do not appreciate your fatuous and condescending commentary, but of all the things I have had to clarify in this exchange, this one is probably the biggest waste of time. Is there some girl you are trying to impress later? Good luck with whatever motivates you, ha ha.
@@shawnbydalek4153, there you go...obviously an academic long before you ever became a Jersey girl...ha ha.
I haven't watched the video yet but wanted to add my 2 cents on the subject before I did. Interstellar travel is such a daunting technological challenge and with the fact that a worm hole or interdimensional travel is evening more daunting, I think it far more likely that on the rare instance that intellectual life does find the Goldie locks environment to develop that they will perish or at least regress technologically before they find a way to reach other star systems (A Ph.D. Aerospace/computer Engineer who works for a large American defense contractor).
Traveling anywhere close to the speed of light would require immense amounts of energy. Slower speeds mean less ability to leave the solar system, much less to travel elsewhere within the galaxy.
@@rdberg1957 Yes, I can do math (E=MCsquared), the closer you get to C2, mass goes towards infinity. ...but thanx for your reply.
Knowing the puddle analogy makes this really entertaining to watch. Intelligent life is only special because we deem it special (since we are intelligent life). Perhaps if dinosaurs had continued living, they would wonder how improbable it seems that all the events of the universe led to their massive teeth. I imagine that if they still had brains that small they certainly would.
The only reason we consider ourselves to be intelligent is because, at least so far, we have not come across anything we deem to be more intelligent than ourselves. Most of humankind is incapable of grasping this very simple concept. That is how intelligent we are. Instead of applying our `intelligence` and cleaning up the only place we can call home we wallow in the self satisfaction of how intelligent we are as our short termed egotism and vanity condemns us to the dustbin of biology. We are going to destroy ourselves. That is how intelligent we are.
In a recent article titled “The Trouble with Puddle Thinking,” astronomers Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes explain why this analogy fails. Consider more closely the puddle’s reasoning. Let’s name our puddle Doug. He has noticed a precise match between two things: 1) his shape and 2) the shape of the hole in which he lives. Doug is amazed! What Doug doesn’t know is that, given A) the fluidity of water, B) the solidity of the hole, and C) the constant downward force of gravity, he will always take the same shape as his hole. If the hole had been different, his shape would adjust to match it. Any hole will do for a puddle. This is precisely where the analogy fails: any universe will not do for life. Life is not a fluid. It will not adjust to any old universe. There could have been a completely dead universe: perhaps one that lasts for 1 second before recollapsing or is so sparse that no two particles ever interact in the entire history of the universe.
The existence of life exactly as it exists today is indeed incredibly improbable. Similarly, if I dump a jar of marbles on the floor, the exact position of those marbles after they all come to rest is incredibly improbable. Just as there is more than one possible outcome of dumping a jar of marbles, there is more than one path to intelligent life.
It's worth reiterating that these are just three out of a much, much larger number of variables that had to work out a certain way to reach intelligent life on Earth. The rare and stable nature of our star, the rare mass and distance of our planet, the rare size and relationship we have with a single moon, the relatively stable 4 billion years or so without calamity from the space around us, the unlikely and massive introduction of water to our planet after it cooled (likely caused by a massively unlikely journey inwards and outwards by Jupiter), the good fortune for no geological or viral catastrophe wiping out our nascent ancestors, the misfortunes throughout history that DID wipe out our competitors, the catalog of random mutations and adaptions that were necessary to get from single cells to intelligent, social, tool-wielding, speech-enabled creatures able to consider and address the very concept of outer space - and on and on and on the variables go. Bonus variables, by the many, many thousands, come in to play to reach each individual person alive today, which already stands upon the unlikely shoulders of the variables above. The fact that any of us exist to contemplate our own unlikeness is a miracle so unlikely that it's truly astounding that it even happened once in our universe. Treasure your impossible existence while you can - none of us has long before it blinks out again.
You make the argument much better than the speaker. Although correct, he chose weird examples to illustrate the Rare Earth hypothesis.
Wow... quite a statement.
I totally agree with this guy even though there is very little Data to support what he is saying. IDK if we are alone in the Milky Way, but Intel Life is def wayyyy more rare than everyone thinks. Just because there is a INSANE amount of Stars, Planets, and Galaxies doesn't automatically make Intel Life common. If you combine what this Gentleman has said, with the fact that we have no clue what the odds of Abiogenesis is (it could be such a wildly rare statistic to the point we could be the only Intel Species in the UNIVERSE) honestly with all the data we know, at best it's 50/50.
50/50??? Wow. Guess you didn't see the Airforce radar video released with the radiating UFO'S conducting maneuvers that defy physics or the granite caves in India with perfectly carved interior domes that were measured with lasers and are nearly PERFECT, but are tens of thousands of years old. There are hundreds upon hundreds of similar like examples which are virtually impossible to replicate even with today's technologies!
@@jefft6802UFO doesn’t automatically confirm aliens. It could be anything.
This should be one of the most watched videos on KZhead.
Spending enough time on Facebook I’m starting to wonder if there is intelligent life on this planet
Same here.FB is full of fake news & moronic posts.
Farhan Ahmed true that bro
He's still engaged in a bit of a teleology, though. Unless you're invoking religion, nothing "leads" to us, and a lot hinges on how you define intelligence. Defant clearly defines intelligence in terms of his experience as a human being. Intelligence may exist in the sense that whales, dolphins, octopuses, chimps, and ravens are intelligent, but that life just doesn't use tools (or advanced tools), doesn't care, and doesn't create culture. Another option: lots of life, but it's all just bacteria, molds, fungi, and algae, and we're just the swamp slime that happens to contemplate our own navels. His talk would be more correctly titled, "Why human beings didn't develop everywhere."
I thought he was clear enough with the key point "why isn't SETI finding anything". Alien whales and octopuses aren't sending any messages to Earth. For them to become intelligent enough to send a radio message they urgently need their own series of very lucky events. Starting with getting rid of us!
What "theology" did you hear? I thought it was all science.
@@geocountsdatasupply3312 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@jasonpatrickries I didn't hear any "theology." I wrote "teleology." Big difference.
@Jason Ries He mentions fine tuning, which is basically The teleological argument, Both of which are used by apologists as evidence for creationism. He sounds like an apologist the entire time. He's likely a thiest.
This is excellent food for thought. I've been thinking along these lines for a long time, starting with the faulty idea that monkeys typing would eventually complete the works of Shakespeare. Our existence was not inevitable. And neither was our leap into Outer Space. If we're allowed to flourish for 100 million years on Earth as the dinosaurs were lucky to have experienced, then I have confidence that we will go far. But I still doubt we'll ever find intelligent life in our Galaxy (and I doubt we will ever go any further).
So far it seems that the more intelligent life is, the shorter the duration of its existence. Intelligent life exists because environmental conditions in a given time permit it. In the history of our planet, the window of permitting conditions is a fraction of the life of the planet. If humans survive the next two centuries, we may have time to continue to evolve.
This is a brilliant POV and I'm very grateful that TED decided to post it on YT. I agree 100% with Mr. Defant in his hypothesis. I've always thought that, if not for the highly improbable collision of that Mt. Everest-sized meteor ending the 135-million year reign of the dinosaurs, mammals would never have evolved into anything more important than a meal for apex predators.
Might have been an improvement it we had had that collision - but it proves absolutely nothing about life in the Universe - for or against
its the most logical and beautiful POV of the universe. I didn’t feel very special when I grew up with faith. That some god created me here to suffer for a purpose. When I learned just how rare and alone we are, and the miraculous beauty of it, I felt very special to be living as an observer
This is not some crazy theory he dreamed up. It's legit theory. goes back decades. Weird for Ted to flag.
What exactly is brilliant about someone having bad deductive reasoning skills given all the empirical evidence in the universe for the exact opposite of what he claims...?!?!
@@SWest00072 What is the empirical evidence? Please share. Much appreciated.
The probability of a life-generating event is small at any time, but since things keep happening they will constitute a virtually infinite number of occurrences over time and so the probability that a life-generating event will eventually occur is pretty high.
How do you know that the probability of a life generating event is small. Maybe there have been several every day for the past 3 billion years. Why does it have to be something that just happens once? How can you say it is rare when you, and I, dont even know how it occurs ??
That is assumption. The evidence suggests life shouldn't be in the universe once, and that we'd need far more planets for it to be likely even onc.
Having an infinite number of something doesnt increase the probability of a particular event. There is no NECESSITY for life to exist. That is why Mark's emphasis on the rareness, randomness and improbability of various events was so important. This randomness and rarity proves the lack of NECESSITY for life elsewhere. If you can prove there was NECESSITY you will become rich and famous, until you die.
@@admiralbenbow5083 It's certainly been rare within the scope of our observation. But you're right to suggest that our observation is pretty limited and there are lots of other places.
And yet against all the odds we're living in a time when we can ask this question?
That's called the "Anthropic principle"
After the Big Bang it passed several billion years for life forms to appear somewhere and evolve for The First Civilization to arise. The individuals of that First Civilization repeatedly said: _we could not be alone, there must be other Civilization somewhere in the universe._ But, no, there was no other.
Amazing talk!!!
He's right. We are here because of very specific events ... despite their being seemingly random. Impossible for humans to exist elsewhere ... and I don't know about intelligent life ... but I feel that there is some kind of life out there - even simple, single-celled life.
1. Without the Moon's stabilizing effect the Earth would face extreme climat changes. 2.,3.,4.,5., ....
WHat is the rational behind your feeling, given all the evidence is the opposite?
''TEDx's curatorial guidelines'' - gotta love this.
A self-important statement, I think.
I really like Marc's thinking and his presentation. I also agree that intelligent life similar or greater than humans is a very very rare event (singularity) to occur anywhere in our universe. We are so so lucky to have been given the gift of being a human life. We could have been bacteria...or moths, if you get my general point. But the mere fact that we are intelligent humans, sadly, does not mean that we will take advantage of it. Only a small percentage of humans on Earth are smart enough to ponder their existence in the way Marc presented here. Most humans are too shallow, too intellectually lazy to think big thoughts. Some are mentally lazy and so they just say "God did it". And then they are morally lazy so as not to even properly follow the moral laws of the god that they worship. So there should be a further subset of humans to be in awe about...the ones , like Marc, who are smart enough to ponder their own existence in this scientific and accurate way.
Marc gave a brilliant presentation to keep the conversation open to ponder our existence. Most people are indeed uninterested and some do just says God did it. We will all be equally as lazy if we leave the conversation of our being as fortuitous or a series of improbable events. In the same breathe that life evolves, there is a purpose to that evolution which came about only by chance? It seem ‘mildly’ contradictory. Then, Why do we even need consciousness as our natural evolutionary state is more than sufficient for our species existence from the brain/body size index? I think we can be diligent from this conversation to ponder the evidences logically if life is an accident.
@@ten9195 you fail to clearly state your point...it is better to be clear and specific rather than vague
Sorry mate, let me try. In essence, Marc has left it open to probe if life on earth is the result of an accident caused by a series of improbable chances and evolution for life preservation. So here goes some questions in reverse. If nature produces what it needs. Why does life even occur if it has no purpose in a universe that has existed for billions of years preceding? Humans with self consciousness has an extraordinary capacity far exceeding what is required for life. So why has nature gone so much further through to produce a matter that is so singular but yet so totally superfluous? The probability for life to exist opportunistically is a mathematical impossibility, ask SETI as it gazes the night skies. We will be lazy if we conveniently leave it as fortuitous to exists alone and ignore the math. So the pertinent question for us is what else unseen could be at play?
Some of the smartest and thoughtful person to live believed in God and some were atheists. Its silly to attribute either point of view to intelligence.
Oh, i get it, we can worship Marc
I enjoyed Professor Defant's lecture. I share the same conclusion that we may be the only 'intelligent' life to be found, simply because Earth is the only example we have of life in the entire universe. We can't even form probabilities around this single event. So we're left with the conclusion that we're the only ones, until some evidence comes up to disprove that.
There is evidence all over this planet that proves without question that there were many highly intelligent civilizations on this planet tens of thousands of years ago, who were far more intelligent than we are today.
What you say is technically true, for now. The Kepler telescope is rapidly cataloging planetary systems where once we saw only pinpricks of light at night. If so (and we don't destroy ourselves in the meantime) I think we may discover there's life on other worlds in the next generation or two - and I hope we can get our sheet together before we meet them. If not, as Sagan so aptly put it: "It's an awful waste of space".
What you are saying is statistically impossible!!!! There are over 220 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy and based on a very researched and documented equation, the Astro-Copernican Limit, there are potentially several advanced civilizations existing in the Milky Way - and that is on a very conservative basis. Just like centuries before, everyone thought the Sun went around the Earth, that the Earth was flat, now you are going to tell us that humans are the only advanced beings in the Milky Way?!
@@bradwhitham4115 While he was smoking his mooncabbage and writing a book where he made simplistic mistakes such as "Eratosthenes proved earth is a globe". He was unable to visualize something as simple as the fact that Eratosthenes exercise wasnt intended to prove earth is round, nor did it prove earth round. His exercise was to measure the size of an Earth known to be a globe for centuries before😆😆😆😆
If there are 100 billions of galaxies each with 100 billions of stars, one would need to be really conceited, and smug. and feel so special, to be able to believe there arent other beings in the universe of at least our small level of awareness
The cold reality is that, no matter what technology we develop, it's extremely likely that we will never have any contact with alien life-forms, even if they do exist. The interstellar distances are simply too great. The Human race will remain alone.
Yup. God did not create others
At least until artificial intelligence advances beyond our control
@@gemmrk Who?
I agree. The distances, the speed of light and the time that we have had radio technology are why we haven't detected similar intelligence. I found this talk to be very very poor, being devoid of a basic understanding of time, the size of the universe and basic statistics. Whether we remain alone, is time and technology dependent and some element of luck. The location of a near by intelligent world that is only 100 years behind us could be the case. I think the use of radio technology may be transient in a species technological evolution. if you see smoke on the horizon, you don't assume someone is trying to signal you, you just think "yeh, there's a fire" and carry on with your day.
I disagree. If you put people in cold storage, or have enough people, they can voyage through the universe forever.
Yes life is precious and rare...when you have infinite options...then the possibilities are also infinite ! this talk makes a wrong assumption that Human's are the intelligent species in the universe !
we have had radio based communications for about 100 years. Technology is progressing to the point that radio communications will most likely be completely obsolete in another 100 years. Assuming that a civilization as advanced as we are has indeed existed, that means we have a 200 year window of opportunity to actually observe them. Highly unlikely in a 13billion year old universe.
@Gernot Schrader Ive heard legends of the rare intelligent alien species known as Mark Zuckerberg Only pictures have been taken, but im telling you, this species is real and I have proof
How are there infinite options? Also, I don't think that he said that we are the only intelligent species in the universe. Only that, due to the odds, there probably aren't as many as we would hope.
This is a very convincing argument for the uniqueness of our pathway to intelligent life, but there could be numerous other pathways to different intelligent life forms.
I have always thought that intelligent life is rare, almost improbable. On the other hand, primitive life (i.e., not "intelligent) is probably common given the millions of goldilocks planets in our galaxy and other galaxies. So in that sense, we are not alone.
That’s probably what all the other countless intelligent life forms across the universe are thinking. It’s just a matter of scale. Intelligent life besides us in the universe isn’t just probable it’s a mathematical certainty. What’s improbable,however, is any of those life forms developing the adequate technology that will allow them to traverse the immense distances of space and encounter other intelligent life forms.
@@JudasMaccabeus1 again, I don't think there are countless "intelligent" life forms cross the universe. I do think there are countless life bearing planet (see my further coment below)
@@JohnAdams-dj1xi at the end of the day we just simply don’t and cannot know. We are working with a sample size of 1! 🙏
@@JudasMaccabeus1 I believe we wil discover planets with clear biosignatures soon ... I hope so. To me it is reassuring to think other worlds are alive but, as I argued, not with what we would call intelligent techno life forms.
@@JohnAdams-dj1xi Absolutely. Even if there isn’t “intelligent life” within our little portion of the Milky Way galaxy, there’s still so many billions of more galaxies and solar systems out there that it just seems silly to assume we’re the only ones.
Intellectual life can vary. There can be many different types of intellectual lives, having different evolutionary history. The things that is crucial are things like moderate temperature, access to various elements. If these elements are there, intellectual life might evolve one way or another. The question is not whether we are alone, but where or when are the others(We might be the first and alone since the others are yet to come).
No one cares about your variability. We are only talking about radio capable life.
Too many assumptions made. For example: -- Dinosaurs. Because dinosaurs existed, and became extinct, means that they must have to exist elsewhere, and become extinct? Why assume that dinosaurs would ever exist somewhere else where intelligent life exists? -- Primates. The speaker assumes that because primates, on earth, have evolved into intelligent life forms, that primates, and only primates can be intelligent life forms. There could be species completely foreign and alien to anything we could imagine that have evolved into intelligent life. -- There is more... but I do not want to write War and Peace. The speaker also assumes that all intelligent life must have started recently, in cosmological term. Again, he is basing that on Earth. How can he possibly dismiss that intelligent life might have been formed 8 billion years ago (or 3 billion years ago, or 750 million years ago, etc), elsewhere in our galaxy? I am all for SETI. But SETI, as great as that organization is, it is only a toddler. I suspect that if you were to speak to a key person in that organization, they will tell you that "If we only had another $1billion (or $10billion, etc) our research would not be held back; we would be decades ahead of our time." And think about it. How much better will we be, technology wise, to search for intelligent life in 20 years from now (or in 200 years from now, etc). Folks 500 years from now will look back at our searching efforts the way we look at folks that used floppy disks and punch card readers. They will likely say: "Of course SETI could never do a proper search with those old telescopes, slow computers and old technology." The speaker repeatedly conveys how improbable it was for any, not to mention all, of the events to take place for intelligent life to form on Earth. So he is arguing why we should not be here, while explaining why we are here. Perhaps, in a galaxy of ~300,000,000,000 stars, it is not so improbable? This speaker is too focused on finding intelligent life based on what he sees in the mirror, and based on his personal timeline.
Get off your mommies computer.
+ Perhaps -- he's not saying that dinosaurs are a necessary precondition for intelligent for life to form, but illustrating that, if not for a "statistically improbable" (we may disagree there) event, this earth would be filled with life -- just not the kind that builds radiotelescopes and longs for alien contact. We are a singular evolutionary outcome, as far as we know, in the entire fossil record, which makes the argument that there may well be life all over the place in universe, but if we look at earth as a representative case (which is the sample set we have) then we must assume that linguistic, reading/writing, surviving-by-tool-using types of "intelligent" life is comparatively rare versus life in general. There is probably an abundance of life out there, but the chances for it to rely on this specific survival strategy that favors linguistic intelligence and hands, and then for it to avoid being wiped out (genetic records indicate the entire human population was once reduced to only about 10,000 individuals or so at one point -- and that 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct), and then for it to discover an abundant energy source like fossil fuels so it can develop industrial technology for radio, etc., -- this is piling on statistical improbability on top of statistical improbability, and then there is the chance of any two of these super-event chains being coincident in time so they can find each other... SETI is not just looking for life, or intelligent life, per se, but specifically the kind that uses radio waves... and by the time their signals reach us they probably would have gone extinct or uploaded themselves into computers anyhow...
The speaker has never seen a reptilian. =)
You wrote War and Peace...
How dare you assume their gender
16:00 In the end, SETI is largely a no-lose proposition. It helps to stimulate the evolution in communication technology, radio astronomy, and the like. Those improvements have benefits, whether or not we ever find ETI. But really, it operates more in the reverse direction: Technological improvement in those areas keeps making SETI easier, as a nice by-product. So let's keep doing SETI, with enough funding to keep it developing, which is actually tiny in the great seep of things anyway.
SETI is a fund-raising arm for space exploration: it seems to keep the funds pumping
Maybe that planet with intelligent life is >55 light years away; but seriously, there may be many other improbable events on another planet that could have produced intelligent life, other than that based on humanoid forms. What if non-avian dinosaurs didn't go extinct? Maybe one of them could have become intelligent. The bottom line is that there may be any number of forms that intelligent life could have taken, but once it did happen, that may have closed off opportunities for other species to fill our niche.
Agreed. I think Marc does not appreciate how large the universe is or how statistics work. Life began on this planet almost as soon as it cooled enough. Marc may be right in his assessment of the long distances between intelligent life, but I suggest our perspective about this may be incredibly hampered at this stage of our development. Also, the evidence he gives is how we came to be; it is how we are. But that does not mean we are special. I think it is arrogant to think we have the right to continue destroy - this our only habitable planet nearby now that we know better - just because we think we will go to heaven and God will explain it all.
Yes I think it's possible that other intelligent life forms could occur under different circumstances and maybe they look like the one in the film 'Alien'. My thoughts though are on the scale and size of the universe and galaxy that it takes 4.24 light years to even get to the nearest star to ours and there is no intelligent life in that solar system. It is likely that we will never travel at the speed of light or anywhere near. We are seeing it as it was 4.24 years ago. Also it will take 100,000 years to reach there. Distance means a different time which also has to be a factor of finding intelligent life.
Your explanation would only apply if an alien civilization started transmitting signals less than 55 years ago. If there has been an alien civilization producing a detectable electro-magnetic signal in our galaxy in roughly the past 90000 years, the signal would most likely have been detected by now. I personally think there IS intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, though I think it’s very rare. I will hold to that until science can explain with certainty how life developed from the elements. Science has not even scratched the surface of that question.
"Any number of forms of intelligent life," excludes all the American "pastors," because they have no intelligence.
If the exact same events that lead to us are the absolute requirement then yes life will be exceedingly rare. More likely is are path was one of infinite paths to intelligent life. The speaker fails to consider other life might not be carbon based and dependent on oxygen. It might breath methane and be a gelatinous polymer, more likely it will be a form we have yet to imagine.
I was listening until he said "nearly infinite." Infinity is literally an infinite expanse away from any real number. Probability doesn't work that way.
Believe it or not, some infinities are greater than others. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Of course he meant it colloquial.
My first issue comes from the claim that all elements heavier than helium can arise only from supernovae. Any star entering its final stage will combine up to iron, but at that ppint it requires more energy than a main sequence star can create. The supernovae create the elements heavier than iron.
absolutely correct. I knew this when I gave the talk but because of time limitations, I did not wish to get into red giants, etc.
yes but in order for the contents of a star to be distributed around it first needs to explode
It is highly likely that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, but it is most probably so distant that we will never discover it.
exactly. just calculate the time to get to the nearest possible one: millions of generations
What are the chances of finding intelligent life that wants to be friends with us or help us with our problems? What is even the point of finding intelligent life out there?
@@jamescollier3 We don't have enough energy on Earth to send a short message to Proxima Centauri 4.25 light years away.
And the chance is great it is so good for this intelligent life elsewhere, they never will have to discover a deadly species as us........ !
you are right but i think, Marc Defant is talking about our Galaxy (the Milkyway Galaxy)?! i mean the titel of this video is called Galaxy
With up to 6 major extinctions taking away over 95 percent of life on earth, it's understandable that intelligent life took so long to develop. It also took so long for enough stars to go nova to create the necessary elements for life. So within just half the life of the universe having passed despite our six mass extinctions we still developed intelligent life.
When aliens hear our radio they all moved.
I can imagine that Mumble rap was the final straw.
Lol
@@beefymario88 It would be for me!
Tough crowd.
Good since he started out wrong about what the BB would produce and then got it all wrong about the nebula of gas AND DUST that our solar system started from. For his education he sure produced a lot of ignorance.
I appreciate his enthusiasm and intellectual curiosity. As a theist, I find it fascinating to watch atheist abandon the Copernican Principal. Sentience would be absolutely impossible - if it weren't for that one exception to the rule, life on Earth.
Our solar nebula was certainly already enriched with heavy elements when it formed. And lots of such nebulae will have supernovae nearby. So I don't think the first step is terribly improbable, though I agree that there may well be many improbable steps in the path to intelligent life.
By "intelligent life", this man actually means humans. Humans, in fact are rare. An astronomical improbability. But that doesn't mean you have to be human to be intelligent. Hell, maybe the dinosaurs would have developed complex thought if they hadn't died. OUR form of life came to be through a lot of specific details, but that's just the recipe to make humans. A whole other set of events could also make intelligent life, just not intelligent HUMAN life
+Nathan Stevenson Excellent point Nathan. I addressed the issue below but will summarize here. There is no doubt that there may be many ways that intelligent life could evolve. If true, than it does undermine my premise. But let me emphasize that in 4.5 billion years of the history of earth no intelligent life evolved until us. In addition, you have the Fermi paradox to contend with - "where is all the intelligent life" if it is out there? I don't think there is a right answer here and we can continue to speculate without coming to any conclusive resolve. In regards to your point, there was an interesting article published in Icarus last year which suggested that there is a code hidden in our DNA (they do not suggest they know what the code is but note that it is statistically improbable that it is random). If true, perhaps the universe was ceded with DNA with a code that tells us our history (speculation on their part). I remain skeptical but open to the possibility.
+Marc Defant I must also point out that it is incredibly conceited to think that we humans are the ONLY intelligent life that has ever existed on this planet. Having opposable thumbs is hardly a prerequisite for intelligence, but it certainly helps in making tools. Tools (especially the development of written communication) have allowed us to accomplish quite a bit more than would have been attainable by a marine mammal with equal intelligence.
Nathan Stevenson you don't know how we came to be
Love hidden codes, Mark Defant!
Marc, your enthusiasm and excitement about the incredulous miracle of this life is right on par with mine although you know many more facts about the subject here. Funny that sometimes if I stay on the subject too long I feel as if I could spontaneously combust LOL, like some kind of sensory overload `on contemplating the vastness of this STRANGE Universe, the numbers of galaxies and solar systems, LIGHT YEARS of distance and INFINITY...And then I just have to Stop and normalize? Fat chance of that, Ha! :D Great fun Talk! Thank You xox
A fascinating lecture. The search for life beyond Earth may be analogous to the attempt to detect luminiferous aether in the late 19th century. Prior to the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment , essentially everyone believed in the existence of aether. Those results may have been disappointing to some but were nonetheless of great value to the advancement of scientific understanding. The search for ET isn't over. I think either result will be equally amazing.
Karl, I disagree that "either result will be equally amazing." If extraterrestrial intelligent life is found, it will be "amazing". If not found, it will be inconclusive.
"Life elsewhere can never be ruled out." - Dr. Never Saynever
Universe was designed to prevent close encounter of the first kind hence the expanding universe. It is so fast expanding that we will not get to reach our first planet that support life.
reminds me somewhat of Dr Don Brownlee.....his book "rare Earth" investigates just how incredibly UNlikely the existence of other Earth-like worlds actually is.
Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. One of these has to be true. We cannot possibly be alone but if we are that would be far more astonishing that we are not.
Of course there's a possibility that we're alone...a strong one. All of the evidence, so far, is for being alone. You can spout on about many billions of stars there are and billions of galaxies but life is not a statistical inevitability. We have zero idea of how likely or unlikely it is for life to form, so to use the numbers argument for planets and stars is fairly useless.
I think life must exist elsewhere - but it is rare and far between, but because of the great distances involved - to the point of 'breaking time' - it means we are alone. So maybe the paradox is that both are true. And that's the scary part!!!
@Appleholic1 I agree! The idea that we are alone in our Milky Way Galaxy, let alone our entire electrified plasma universe, is crazy! , and doesn't make sense, totally illogical!
We are the only physical , intelligent, life in the universe right now, but the whole physical universe was not created in vain.
Either is possible.
I find comfort in the idea that there are probably not intelligent beings elsewhere. Or if there are, they could never make it to us owing to great distances. Or if they could make it here, they probably would not be able find us in the great void. The house is a mess and I'm not prepared for guests.
Or they might see us as a sustainable source of protein ?
Here's another thought--we've been sending out radio waves for only about 150 years, and most of those weren't very powerful. They travel at lightspeed. So how long would it take to be discovered and receive an answer, even if there were critters who could receive them and detect the coherence amid background radiation?
The closest star system is ~4.5 light years. I don't honestly know how many more are within a 150 light year imaginary sphere with our sun at the center. Good question.
Don't let the TEDx Talks "NOTE" scare you off. This video shows an interesting story based on a bunch of solid science. The only "sweeping claim" here is what really should be the obvious conclusion that throughout the history of evolution on Earth life bumped up against glass ceilings, and improbable events broke the glass. Consider the Octopus or the Dolphin. Pretty smart, but trapped in the water where they can't invent fire. Marc Defant's presentation style isn't the polished "NPR Voice" they want, but his story is more interesting than most of the TEDx Talks. All of the scientific facts herein presented as facts are indeed facts. If TEDx doesn't like his conclusion because it's speculative, well, there are a whole buncha TEDx talks that should be flagged before this one.
"solid" science -- if scientists used his methodology you wouldn't have the computer or internet available to you to spread your opinion.
I agree. Whether you agree or not we have to face that life probably is rare and even rarer to survive long enough to spread outward. He has his theories which are impossible to prove (right now anyway) so it's easy to attack his ideas. Best to listen, think and not rush to agree or disagree with him. We have a long way to go to insure we do last as a species so it's best to just assume intelligent life is rare and do our best to keep it going.
@Gernot Schrader -- investor friendly really isn't the issue. Getting the crutch of religion out of society that is now seriously holding us back would be nice though.
Gary Longsine Consider the Octopus or the Dolphin. Pretty smart, but trapped in the water where they can't invent fire.LMAO Goofy as F
I don't know about that. I feel like the logic that we evolved a certain way therefore no other variables can exist for life to evolve other ways with other variables seems far fetched to me. Perhaps a better way of looking at it would be, we evolved this way due to the variables presented to us, and if the variables were different the evolution would have been different, but no less intelligent.
How are statistically improbable events ascertained on a galaxy wide level, let alone a universal level. However, assuming we are an anomoly, then statistically at least one technologically advanced civilization exists in each galaxy. That means billions.
That is not correct. The probability that life and intelligent life emerges could be so low that there would be much fewer than one planet per galaxy with intelligent life. It is fundamentally flawed to think we can conclude from the fact that we exist there must be a certain minimum probability for the emergence of life and of intelligent life (apart from the fact that it is obviously not exactly zero). It is the same kind of flawed thinking as if someone who travels a country in a train concluded from their observations that railway barriers are typically closed. From the fact of our existence we cannot derive any statistical minimum likelihood for the emergence of intelligent life on a planet. We know that it is not impossible, but apart from that, we cannot say anything. Only if we had evidence for an independent second case when life emerged on a planet would the idea that it is extremely unlikely that life emerges on a planet become less plausible, and until we could make sound statistical statements about how many planets with intelligent life we should expect (e.g. one per galaxy), even more cases would be needed.
Adrian, i think the statistical argument is very weak in general, since our universe might just be one of an incredible (infinite?) amount of universes, it might be the "right" one with a lot of intelligent life in it.
There is zero evidence for any other life in the the entire universe. If you want to use statistics you have to go with his kind of analysis. We may be the only intelligent life in the universe. In the absence of data, it's mainly speculation.
The statistical argument was given in reverse: (a) Planetary billiards needed to give an earth moon system: say one in million. (Implicit in statement about the stellar nebular had to be just right, see work of VARDAN ADIBEKYAN) (b) Roughly 1 trillion potential planets in this galaxy: about 300 billion stars, 3 to 4 planets per star (c) Odds of human intelligence on earth: say one in million from (Implicit in statement, only humanity had intelligence, contradicted by test evidence showing many candidates available for the next 10 million years, Crows, Elephants, Octopus, Lobsters, and brain science superiority of pilot whales.) 1. Odds of dinosaur killing meteorite strike, about one in thousand, hit land, sulfur deposit, after evolution of burrows, and triggered DECCAN traps. Otherwise a dinosauroid or bird intelligence with better than human intelligence. (Homolog of Mammalian Neocortex Found in Bird Brain) 2. Odds of the African rift valley in just the right location combined with a nearby supernova causes mutations allowing a bigger brain case, about one in thousand. Otherwise an elephant or mammoth civilization. (Bigger brain than human with prehensile trunk. The thousands of muscles in the elephant trunk imply fineness of control is limited only by the brain, not the trunk itself. Able to generate power moves with either the tusks, whole body or the trunk.) In other words the arguments given in the presentation amounted to, ignore nonhuman intelligence test results, and brain science, for Crows, and Elephants. Consider the improbability of the planetary billiards implied by the earth moon system, and our evolution combined. As presented, one human civilization per galaxy, one thousand elephant / mammoth civilizations, and one million dinosauroid civilizations, with humans the million to one dummies. Given the million to one odds against us: the odd cetacean civilization arising from cetaceans deciding to return to the land. They have had 25 million years since developing their current intelligence. Pilot whales for example have twice the number of neurons of humans combined with far more support cells per neuron. (ORCA beach themselves to eat seal lions.) No mention of the nature of the planetary billiards: Jupiter drifted inwards, shown by the masses of the inner planets Ceres, Mars, Venus, and Earth Moon system. Saturn appeared in time to prevent a hot Jupiter but after Earth Moon system was inevitable. (Implicit in the statement about the Stellar Nebula having to have just the right composition.) Failed to mention 1. the need for stellar and atmosphere evolution to match. (thousand to one chance) If the star luminosity increases more slowly than the rate of reduction of greenhouse gases due to photosynthesis, a planet will become a snowball. If the equator freezes slowly light will get through the ice, and life will survive as it did on earth. If the equatorial regions froze quickly, the ice will be opaque and life will fail. If the star luminosity increases more quickly than the rate of reduction of greenhouse gases due to photosynthesis, a planet will cook with a runaway green house effect. (See Venus) There is a potential third mode of planetary failure: removal of carbon dioxide by geological activity increases, due to increased stellar luminosity, to the point where plants, and hence life, fails due to insufficient carbon dioxide. The 3 modes of planetary failure imply there is only a few % between success and failure. 2. the need for access to materials, Fe iron, Cu copper, etc. in surface ores. If the materials for technology could only be found inside granite in low concentrations, it would impose a considerable barrier to technological development. (An earth moon system may be the only option for a technological society.) 3. Surface gravity below twice earth. The energy for orbit would be too great. (Only a narrow range of planets suitable for technological development into space. ) 4. A life form interested in space travel. If jumping is not in your repertoire, you are unlikely to dream about interstellar flight. (Elephants walk everywhere, even when charging, any ORCA returnees to land would be likewise limited, Octopus and lobster would also fail to jump.) (Dinosauroid would be using their ability to jump, judge direction, and anticipate, to hunt. )
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. At best you can say "we don't know". If we don't know, is that reason to stop looking?
I cannot see how the possibility of a supreme being ordering incredibly improbable events in the universe in order to produce intelligent life is per se an "arrogant" idea. Rather, such a judgment seems arbitrary and subjective. One could just as easily see such a notion as deeply humbling.
I heartily agree all of these improbable things had to happen but here on Earth they did that’s not to say that it decreases or increases the chances of it happening elsewhere in our galaxy or indeed in the universe or at a time that is relevant to us we should be careful of our very human centric view of the universe it might be leading us up dead ends or we just might not be looking in the right place, where there is life There is hope
He is missing some basic info about start of life, there's a few block creating more and more options but it be silly to think we need to go through the same process to get another type of intelligent life. Life on other planets is more possible then he claims. Simply his argument is finding life that looks like us is mere impossible and that my friend is a true and correct statement
You're delusional
ChillsandThrills Ik fr
yet the improbability of intelligent life is just as big as planets and stars in the universe from the forming of eukariote cells fromm prokariot cells (the lucky chance one form of prokariot cell (bacteria) enteing another bigger one and living in symbiosis and the reproduction forming new symbiotic cells doing the same) without that there be only single cell life... 1 in a kazillion chance should mention too that there was no oxigen on earth and somehow a algea formed that changed out atmosphere to contain oxigen.. that life needed for better energy creation within cells.without this event there would not be the life as we know it multiple near life extinction events (the dinosaurs dying from the impact is one of about 5 to 6 events we know of that could have ended all life) the fact this planet has a magnetosphere due to iron core saving out planet from having atmosphere stripped off also a mars size planet hit earth and the crash split a part of and formed the moon that we need to out weathersystem and tides. that life needs also relise 99% of all lifeforms have seized to be... they are extingt... the 1 percent is what is left and that contains 8.7 million different forms of life currently on this planet right now from that 1 percent that is the 8.7 million different forms of life there is only one that is really inteligent (to understand most of the universe) and that is us improbability upon improbability
" The origin of intelligent life on earth requires a host of statistically improbable events which may imply that similar intelligent life elsewhere is extremely unlikely, a fact mostly ignored in discussions about contacting extraterrestrial life. " I don't understand why TED would get their undies in a bunch over this presentation. While some will hoot & holler and condemn this professor for his theories and the way he gleaned his research from the existing abundance of scientific knowledge as I found no contradiction in what he said. It appeared his research centered on "Statistical Improbabilities" that had to occur at a certain time and in the correct order, for Humans to evolve. Regardless if Professor Marc Defant did not dot all the " i " or cross all the " t ", he did present a lecture that made you think about science in another way. which should be encouraged. There is the 5% Known Knowns, there is 10% of Known Unknowns, then there is the 85% of Unknown Unknowns. I think although we are all working as best as we can with our Monkey Brains, that for all our faults, we are doing ok.
Thank you for your comments. I believe TED has a political agenda.
Life has been on Earth for millions of years and only in the last few years have we even started looking up.
At my university is a large funnel dispensing sand onto a large sand box. It is plotting a path all over the place. My professor asked the class...what direction is the funnel oscillating? My response was "between the moon and the sun". He said "that's close but actually it is oscillating in the direction of the major galaxies...they are very far away but there are lots of them".. Punch that data into your statistics.