|
On May 21 2010 07:32 VorcePA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2010 12:59 GiantEnemyCrab wrote:
anything related to space is too expensive for us and we got so many world problems
dont expect space travel will ever be possible light years is too much This is a common misconception that bugs me. :| The truth of the matter is over the last 40 or so years, our quality of life has vastly improved over previous generations thanks largely to the inventions of NASA. The general trend for the stuff they create goes: Stuff for space -> military use -> large corporate use -> consumer use. One I can vaguely think of off the top of my head is that something NASA needed for their launches ultimately translated in to a device that pretty much stopped airplanes from falling out of the sky "randomly" like they did a few decades ago. I don't remember hardly any of the details, but they have a list on their website of all the things they're responsible for that has ended up more or less in the everyday individual's life.
really. NASA? last i checked we're still trying to find ways to "safely" go to the moon
|
On May 21 2010 07:22 Joe12 wrote:
It has taken billions of years for life to adapt to the environment here on Earth. Even if the planet would be capable of sustaining life, similar to ours, it would not be "habitable" to humans. It would be a very hostile environment for the human body, and If exposed to it, you would likely die very quickly.
For example, the Native Americans were dying to European diseases, because their immune system had not developed to deal with it. Now think another planet...
Its not just the distance that keeps us from jumping around with the Navi' in the treetops.
for now it is primarily the distance...
|
On May 21 2010 07:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2010 07:32 VorcePA wrote:On May 20 2010 12:59 GiantEnemyCrab wrote:
anything related to space is too expensive for us and we got so many world problems
dont expect space travel will ever be possible light years is too much This is a common misconception that bugs me. :| The truth of the matter is over the last 40 or so years, our quality of life has vastly improved over previous generations thanks largely to the inventions of NASA. The general trend for the stuff they create goes: Stuff for space -> military use -> large corporate use -> consumer use. One I can vaguely think of off the top of my head is that something NASA needed for their launches ultimately translated in to a device that pretty much stopped airplanes from falling out of the sky "randomly" like they did a few decades ago. I don't remember hardly any of the details, but they have a list on their website of all the things they're responsible for that has ended up more or less in the everyday individual's life. really. NASA? last i checked we're still trying to find ways to "safely" go to the moon
And in order to make those trips safer they have to essentially make up things that nobody else has thought of. Despite the apparent lack of interest in space in America today (in my opinion), we still lead the world in space technology, although several countries are closing the gap. Those inventions are translated, shrunk, and made economically viable for at least a portion of the consumer base, and may be quite a bit different than the original incarnation that NASA used, but ultimately use the same technology.
edit: http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/nasacity/index2.htm <-- found a neat little widget they have showing off all the stuff that you use that is NASA technology.
|
On May 17 2010 14:46 Wr3k wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2010 14:43 orgolove wrote:
So if a kid is 10 years old, and boards a spaceship that can go 50% of lightspeed, even then he will become 50yo by the time he reaches that planet?
:/
Fat chance any of us will make there during our lifetime. Yeah, but hey, I like the idea of earth over 2x gravity and really bad sunburns or cancer from additional solar radiation. Who knows if the planet even has an Ozone layer or an atmosphere that isn't filled with crap that will kill us. Personally id rather chill here and enjoy my life than get shoved into a metal tube and then end up on that planet lol. I really don't think space travel is going to be a viable option for quite a long time. I'm more looking forward to fusion power solving the energy requirements of the human race and world peace and whatnot lol. Though, there are some crazies who say that through nanotechnology, gene therapy etc. that we will be able to become immortal in 50-60 years time. I don't even want to imagine the physiological effects on humans from 2x gravity. You would probably be a cripple after a week, and your heart would have to work so much harder. This place doesn't sound that great TBH. Sounds more like an option for mining water or other precious materials in the distant future imo.
Have you never heard of SPF 50?
Also the double gravity wouldn't really impair people who had lived there for any length of time - their bodies would become stronger to deal with the extra weight. It's kind of like being obese. I bet in our gravity it would be normal for a male who lived there to be able to bench press, say, 500 lbs. (If a normal male can do 250 here)
|
On May 21 2010 07:47 Vain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2010 07:22 Joe12 wrote:
It has taken billions of years for life to adapt to the environment here on Earth. Even if the planet would be capable of sustaining life, similar to ours, it would not be "habitable" to humans. It would be a very hostile environment for the human body, and If exposed to it, you would likely die very quickly.
For example, the Native Americans were dying to European diseases, because their immune system had not developed to deal with it. Now think another planet...
Its not just the distance that keeps us from jumping around with the Navi' in the treetops. for now it is primarily the distance...
Sure, I think we can all agree thats the biggest obstacle 
|
finally, we have found the terrans!
|
On May 17 2010 16:54 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2010 16:34 waxypants wrote:On May 17 2010 15:22 cursor wrote:There is a book by Micheal Corey called "The God Hypothesis". It basically goes over in detail the countless huge coincidences that make this universe able to produce a planet like ours. And, in doing so in the time frame it did, seems to make it look like a universe almost designed to produce planets, in a hugely random fashion, that could sustain life. 2 planets, that we know of so far, most anyone should know- probably means there are tons and tons of them out there. And out of these, a good few could possibly sustain life. I'll briefly list some of the very unlikely things that he observes are happening in "our" universe. + Show Spoiler +The universe is theorized to be about 15 billion years old, with the earth forming at 4.5 billion years ago. That gave 10 billion years from the bang, to allow the universe to create all the "heavier" elements that make up our bodies (Carbon, iron, potassium, etc). From the cauldron of the big bang, to producing stars big enough to create these elements, then to them collapsing to produce the elements- then exploding to redistribute them back to the universe to be sucked in to the creation of a solar system as ours- in theory- could happen no SOONER than 10 billion years. Because- all the materials had to be there when our solar system started forming. This means that our planet formed as SOON as it could have given the length of time needed to create it. If it were truly a "random" event- you would expect it to take some time to actually produce. But- as unlikely as it was, it happened almost immediately.
The odds against making just 1 cell. Given all the materials needed to make a cell, in the exact proportions, in a contained environment, is still an amazingly improbable occurrence. With all the exact molecules needed, it would still take Trillions of Trillions of permutations to create a cell. Some theories to the underlying order of atomic structure are presented as possible catalysts to hasten the production of cells.
The possible occurrences from a Big-Bang like event. An explosion of that size, to distribute itself as it did, into ordered atoms and particles- at the perfect speed to not collapse back in on itself, but to continue to expand apparently indefinitely is obviously an amazing orchestra of occurrences and values such as the Universal Constant (a number Einstein discovered on accident) the Strong and Weak nuclear force, and Electromagnetism. Assuming all of these forces could have assumed any number at all given a "random" generation... the perfect harmony they appear to exist in is staggering. He theorizes some about the results of changing the Universal Constant by .0000001... and explains that the most likely result of an occurrence as mind numbingly large as the Big Bang would be either something that would immediately collapse again.... or spit out a bunch of clustered Di-Protons or Black Holes that would be useless for producing planets and suns and the like. The balance needed to create the diversity in structures we see- seems to have been very unlikely to say the least.
Lastly, he theorizes that the Purpose- had their been a creator- is to create epistemic distance. This distance, is need to implement Free Will. The free will argument permeates religion as much as it does Atheism, for are we living in a perfect Clockwork Universe (Newton) or a totally random universe (Plank)... neither would afford us any real "Free Will". Theoretically, if God just created you- right in front of him... you could be said to have no Free Will at all- because you can too easily trace all of your behaviors and feelings right to the beginning. Though, given the format of this universe- God has essentially insulated himself from life, and its creation, to effectively remove his own influence somehow- through Quantum Mechanics or actual epistemic separation- to give the life created actual- certifiable free will. Completely and totally independent of its creator.
I myself am agnostic, neither believer or non, I don't claim to know anything. But this was by far one of the most interesting books I've read. This line of reasoning is so flawed. You've got no other universe to compare to. Also let's say that only 1 out of 10 billion possible combinations of the universe result in an expanding universe sufficient to support life. The other 9,999,999,999 times it collapses in on itself after an indefinite period of time, but there's nobody around to record it. It randomly explodes again. It collapses again. It explodes again. It collapses again. It explodes, but this time it doesn't collapse. Life either forms or it doesn't. If it does, that's us. If it doesn't, then what? It has forever to make life. In all likelihood it will collapse again. Then it starts over. Who's to say that we're in the first universe at all?
The point is that yes, if it re-collapses, the universe could have another go at it.. assuming that actually changes anything in the universal constants.
But if the constants are out by an absurdly small margin in the other direction, the result is that NOTHING recollapses, and the entire universe is uniformly empty and continually expanding. Game over, no restarts, no life.
Possible solutions to this have been proposed, for example the multiverse theory, which suggests that if there are infinite universes with all possible different values for the constants, explaining how it is possible that one of them actually 'worked'.
I watched a BBC documentary on this.. and when this question was posed to the atheist scientists they started talking about multiverse, or the possibility that we might be alien test subjects (no joke! They went as far as 'what if we're all just brains in a tank')
My take on it is that these are the issues where science breaks down. For me as a christian it is obvious that it's God, but for people who refuse to see God it obviously must have another answer.. however unlikely it might seem.
I find it interesting that people would rather believe that everything we know is created by aliens than by God..
EDIT: sorry everyone, saw two posts in a row about this and assumed that was the direction the discussion was taking.
|
On May 17 2010 15:22 cursor wrote:
[spoiler]The universe is theorized to be about 15 billion years old, with the earth forming at 4.5 billion years ago. That gave 10 billion years from the bang, to allow the universe to create all the "heavier" elements that make up our bodies (Carbon, iron, potassium, etc). From the cauldron of the big bang, to producing stars big enough to create these elements, then to them collapsing to produce the elements- then exploding to redistribute them back to the universe to be sucked in to the creation of a solar system as ours- in theory- could happen no SOONER than 10 billion years. Because- all the materials had to be there when our solar system started forming. This means that our planet formed as SOON as it could have given the length of time needed to create it. If it were truly a "random" event- you would expect it to take some time to actually produce. But- as unlikely as it was, it happened almost immediately.
What the hell is this. I mean look what it's saying. Earth formed 10 billion years after the universe, so obviously the universe needed 10 billion years to create the materials needed for Earth. And after 10 billion years, Earth formed! Wow it happened as soon as it was possible - it are miracle!
This is so incredibly dumb. It should read Earth formed 10 billion years after the universe, so obviously the universe needed *AT LEAST* 10 billion years to create the materials needed for earth. Earth could have formed billions of years after all the necessary elements were formed. The formation of Earth puts an upper end on when all those elements were around in sufficient qualities, it doesn't define THE moment when it became possible.
It's such horrible circular reasoning. "Earth formed then, so that was when Earth became possible, and since Earth was formed right at that moment, it's obviously miraculous!" Just leave out the middle clause and it reads "Earth formed when Earth formed". Wow what an incredible coincidence
|
On May 21 2010 09:36 MamiyaOtaru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2010 15:22 cursor wrote:
[spoiler]The universe is theorized to be about 15 billion years old, with the earth forming at 4.5 billion years ago. That gave 10 billion years from the bang, to allow the universe to create all the "heavier" elements that make up our bodies (Carbon, iron, potassium, etc). From the cauldron of the big bang, to producing stars big enough to create these elements, then to them collapsing to produce the elements- then exploding to redistribute them back to the universe to be sucked in to the creation of a solar system as ours- in theory- could happen no SOONER than 10 billion years. Because- all the materials had to be there when our solar system started forming. This means that our planet formed as SOON as it could have given the length of time needed to create it. If it were truly a "random" event- you would expect it to take some time to actually produce. But- as unlikely as it was, it happened almost immediately. What the hell is this. I mean look what it's saying. Earth formed 10 billion years after the universe, so obviously the universe needed 10 billion years to create the materials needed for Earth. And after 10 billion years, Earth formed! Wow it happened as soon as it was possible - it are miracle! This is so incredibly dumb. It should read Earth formed 10 billion years after the universe, so obviously the universe needed *AT LEAST* 10 billion years to create the materials needed for earth. Earth could have formed billions of years after all the necessary elements were formed. The formation of Earth puts an upper end on when all those elements were around in sufficient qualities, it doesn't define THE moment when it became possible. It's such horrible circular reasoning. "Earth formed then, so that was when Earth became possible, and since Earth was formed right at that moment, it's obviously miraculous!" Just leave out the middle clause and it reads "Earth formed when Earth formed". Wow what an incredible coincidence
I think he's actually gone and done the math and worked out that 10 billion years is the amount of time it would take for the elements present to form.. there's no suggestion that those elements are required to form the solar system.. only that if the solar system were not comprised of them, earth would be profoundly different from how it is and life would not have come about how it has..
the argument (and i'll agree with you, its not the strongest one he gives) is that because the solar system formed AS SOON as the heavier elements were produced, it seems as if it were 'waiting around' for those elements before it could form.
the argument hinges on the unlikelihood of the two processes (which are unrelated) coinciding so neatly. It isn't circular because the composition at the point the solar system formed was the composition required for life, not the formation of the solar system. hope that clarified rather than confusing!
|
On May 17 2010 14:29 Grobyc wrote:
Earth is getting pretty boring yo
true that
|
On May 21 2010 09:49 hp.Methos wrote:true that
earth is fucking awesome, its just the people who are boring.
|
I don't get why it is assumed that what we need to live is the same thing other living things might need to live.
I mean, for all we know aliens breath methane, are comfortable at 300 degrees Fahrenheit, and water is poison to them.
|
real life starcraft is coming
|
On May 21 2010 09:59 Jonoman92 wrote:
I don't get why it is assumed that what we need to live is the same thing other living things might need to live.
I mean, for all we know aliens breath methane, are comfortable at 300 degrees Fahrenheit, and water is poison to them.
Agreed. These kinds of creatures would obviously have very different physical and behavioral attributes than we do, which makes them less interesting to some people. Many want to find some life out there we can communicate with, but honestly, Earth is no where near ready for something like that.
Any kind of life outside of our planet is of much interest to me, regardless of type or distance.
|
On May 21 2010 07:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
really. NASA? last i checked we're still trying to find ways to "safely" go to the moon
I think this is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in awhile.
Apparently you can not appreciate the first moon landing, so let me break it down with you. I'll do it in miles since I can't find the metric statistics for it all.
238,857 miles to the moon from earth.
2680 miles is the width of America.
238,857 / 2680 = 89 times the width of America.
Let us not forget we have achieved the speed of 24,791 mph, about 24 times the speed of a commercial airplane. How you find that not impressive blows my fucking mind man.. Seriously.
|
On May 21 2010 09:36 MamiyaOtaru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2010 15:22 cursor wrote:
[spoiler]The universe is theorized to be about 15 billion years old, with the earth forming at 4.5 billion years ago. That gave 10 billion years from the bang, to allow the universe to create all the "heavier" elements that make up our bodies (Carbon, iron, potassium, etc). From the cauldron of the big bang, to producing stars big enough to create these elements, then to them collapsing to produce the elements- then exploding to redistribute them back to the universe to be sucked in to the creation of a solar system as ours- in theory- could happen no SOONER than 10 billion years. Because- all the materials had to be there when our solar system started forming. This means that our planet formed as SOON as it could have given the length of time needed to create it. If it were truly a "random" event- you would expect it to take some time to actually produce. But- as unlikely as it was, it happened almost immediately. What the hell is this. I mean look what it's saying. Earth formed 10 billion years after the universe, so obviously the universe needed 10 billion years to create the materials needed for Earth. And after 10 billion years, Earth formed! Wow it happened as soon as it was possible - it are miracle! This is so incredibly dumb. It should read Earth formed 10 billion years after the universe, so obviously the universe needed *AT LEAST* 10 billion years to create the materials needed for earth. Earth could have formed billions of years after all the necessary elements were formed. The formation of Earth puts an upper end on when all those elements were around in sufficient qualities, it doesn't define THE moment when it became possible. It's such horrible circular reasoning. "Earth formed then, so that was when Earth became possible, and since Earth was formed right at that moment, it's obviously miraculous!" Just leave out the middle clause and it reads "Earth formed when Earth formed". Wow what an incredible coincidence
So, the fact is that the right percentage of elements to create an Earth planet exist in in small parts of the universe- so now its absolutely inevitable that a planet that is just the right size, just the right distance from a sun and contains all the elements was bound to happen right away. (Within a few million years.)
I think you're taking out of context the extremely small chance that the planet will have ALL the other characteristics needed besides Material Composition. This is, distance from the sun, size of the sun, size of the planet (most "planetary" material ends up in gas giants), the magnetic field to shield from UV rays and the composition of the atmosphere to do the same. Not to mention the presence of water. Everyone knows the extreme unlikeliness of Earth as far as positioning, size, rotation and other life favorable characteristics, the argument is to couple that with the presence of the materials. Not to just say "the composition was available, so it was bound to be made."
This other planet, while great for having liquid water on it, would probably burn us to a crisp of we were to walk on the surface, because of UV exposure... or would have a completely different atmospheric composition. In fact, Venus us much like Earth except the fact that the Atmosphere would eat your car in about 2 minutes.
Though- on the other hand, the observance of this planet does seem to increase the chances that SOMEWHERE out there, there is a truly Earth like planet. Another kind of life could thrive on this newly found planet, probably not us without massive amounts of adaptive technology.
It doesn't seem like you disagree, fundamentaly, that the universe must be pretty well equiped to produce a good few solar systems like ours- that can possibly support life. You just seem to know more about weather or not it was "intentional" or not. I really can't say that it is or is not.
|
On May 21 2010 09:59 Jonoman92 wrote:
I don't get why it is assumed that what we need to live is the same thing other living things might need to live.
I mean, for all we know aliens breath methane, are comfortable at 300 degrees Fahrenheit, and water is poison to them.
This got me really thinking... Maybe for the same reason we think aliens will be humanoid?
|
Venus atmosphere is a better place than gliese 581c surface.
|
On May 21 2010 09:59 Jonoman92 wrote:
I don't get why it is assumed that what we need to live is the same thing other living things might need to live.
I mean, for all we know aliens breath methane, are comfortable at 300 degrees Fahrenheit, and water is poison to them.
It's not that they are assuming all life requires similar conditions to ours. They are just looking for life that forms in similar conditions to ours because we know what signs to look for -- methane, abundance of nitrogen in the atmosphere, etc. For all we know there could be life in the center of gaseous planets but we'd have no idea how to check from our remote location.
|
On May 21 2010 09:13 kerpal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2010 16:54 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On May 17 2010 16:34 waxypants wrote:On May 17 2010 15:22 cursor wrote:There is a book by Micheal Corey called "The God Hypothesis". It basically goes over in detail the countless huge coincidences that make this universe able to produce a planet like ours. And, in doing so in the time frame it did, seems to make it look like a universe almost designed to produce planets, in a hugely random fashion, that could sustain life. 2 planets, that we know of so far, most anyone should know- probably means there are tons and tons of them out there. And out of these, a good few could possibly sustain life. I'll briefly list some of the very unlikely things that he observes are happening in "our" universe. + Show Spoiler +The universe is theorized to be about 15 billion years old, with the earth forming at 4.5 billion years ago. That gave 10 billion years from the bang, to allow the universe to create all the "heavier" elements that make up our bodies (Carbon, iron, potassium, etc). From the cauldron of the big bang, to producing stars big enough to create these elements, then to them collapsing to produce the elements- then exploding to redistribute them back to the universe to be sucked in to the creation of a solar system as ours- in theory- could happen no SOONER than 10 billion years. Because- all the materials had to be there when our solar system started forming. This means that our planet formed as SOON as it could have given the length of time needed to create it. If it were truly a "random" event- you would expect it to take some time to actually produce. But- as unlikely as it was, it happened almost immediately.
The odds against making just 1 cell. Given all the materials needed to make a cell, in the exact proportions, in a contained environment, is still an amazingly improbable occurrence. With all the exact molecules needed, it would still take Trillions of Trillions of permutations to create a cell. Some theories to the underlying order of atomic structure are presented as possible catalysts to hasten the production of cells.
The possible occurrences from a Big-Bang like event. An explosion of that size, to distribute itself as it did, into ordered atoms and particles- at the perfect speed to not collapse back in on itself, but to continue to expand apparently indefinitely is obviously an amazing orchestra of occurrences and values such as the Universal Constant (a number Einstein discovered on accident) the Strong and Weak nuclear force, and Electromagnetism. Assuming all of these forces could have assumed any number at all given a "random" generation... the perfect harmony they appear to exist in is staggering. He theorizes some about the results of changing the Universal Constant by .0000001... and explains that the most likely result of an occurrence as mind numbingly large as the Big Bang would be either something that would immediately collapse again.... or spit out a bunch of clustered Di-Protons or Black Holes that would be useless for producing planets and suns and the like. The balance needed to create the diversity in structures we see- seems to have been very unlikely to say the least.
Lastly, he theorizes that the Purpose- had their been a creator- is to create epistemic distance. This distance, is need to implement Free Will. The free will argument permeates religion as much as it does Atheism, for are we living in a perfect Clockwork Universe (Newton) or a totally random universe (Plank)... neither would afford us any real "Free Will". Theoretically, if God just created you- right in front of him... you could be said to have no Free Will at all- because you can too easily trace all of your behaviors and feelings right to the beginning. Though, given the format of this universe- God has essentially insulated himself from life, and its creation, to effectively remove his own influence somehow- through Quantum Mechanics or actual epistemic separation- to give the life created actual- certifiable free will. Completely and totally independent of its creator.
I myself am agnostic, neither believer or non, I don't claim to know anything. But this was by far one of the most interesting books I've read. This line of reasoning is so flawed. You've got no other universe to compare to. Also let's say that only 1 out of 10 billion possible combinations of the universe result in an expanding universe sufficient to support life. The other 9,999,999,999 times it collapses in on itself after an indefinite period of time, but there's nobody around to record it. It randomly explodes again. It collapses again. It explodes again. It collapses again. It explodes, but this time it doesn't collapse. Life either forms or it doesn't. If it does, that's us. If it doesn't, then what? It has forever to make life. In all likelihood it will collapse again. Then it starts over. Who's to say that we're in the first universe at all? The point is that yes, if it re-collapses, the universe could have another go at it.. assuming that actually changes anything in the universal constants. But if the constants are out by an absurdly small margin in the other direction, the result is that NOTHING recollapses, and the entire universe is uniformly empty and continually expanding. Game over, no restarts, no life. Possible solutions to this have been proposed, for example the multiverse theory, which suggests that if there are infinite universes with all possible different values for the constants, explaining how it is possible that one of them actually 'worked'. I watched a BBC documentary on this.. and when this question was posed to the atheist scientists they started talking about multiverse, or the possibility that we might be alien test subjects (no joke! They went as far as 'what if we're all just brains in a tank') My take on it is that these are the issues where science breaks down. For me as a christian it is obvious that it's God, but for people who refuse to see God it obviously must have another answer.. however unlikely it might seem. I find it interesting that people would rather believe that everything we know is created by aliens than by God.. EDIT: sorry everyone, saw two posts in a row about this and assumed that was the direction the discussion was taking.
... the universe is not something we as humans can even visualize at the current time. It is like looking at atoms. You know what they do, what they are, but you can't even begin to visualize them. Humans just tend to attribute things they don't understand as part of a greater power to give them purpose.
If the universe was created by aliens, wouldn't that make the aliens our gods?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
