I don't know if this article was discussed at all but I thought that it might be an interesting discussion. In short the TLDR version is that a new "earth" was found, a planet that is made of rock and has earthly temperatures. The article itself also has some pretty pictures but none of them were that important.
It's got the same climate as Earth, plus water and gravity. A newly discovered planet is the most stunning evidence that life - just like us - might be out there. Above a calm, dark ocean, a huge, bloated red sun rises in the sky - a full ten times the size of our Sun as seen from Earth. Small waves lap at a sandy shore and on the beach, something stirs...
This is the scene - or may be the scene - on what is possibly the most extraordinary world to have been discovered by astronomers: the first truly Earth-like planet to have been found outside our Solar System. The discovery was announced today by a team of European astronomers, using a telescope in La Silla in the Chilean Andes. If forced bookies to slash odds on the existence of alien beings. The Earth-like planet that could be covered in oceans and may support life is 20.5 light years away, and has the right temperature to allow liquid water on its surface.
This remarkable discovery appears to confirm the suspicions of most astronomers that the universe is swarming with Earth-like worlds. We don't yet know much about this planet, but scientists believe that it may be the best candidate so far for supporting extraterrestrial life. The new planet, which orbits a small, red star called Gliese 581, is about one-and-a-half times the diameter of the Earth. It probably has a substantial atmosphere and may be covered with large amounts of water - necessary for life to evolve - and, most importantly, temperatures are very similar to those on our world.
It is the first exoplanet (a planet orbiting a star other than our own Sun) that is anything like our Earth. Of the 220 or so exoplanets found to date, most have either been too big, made of gas rather than solid material, far too hot, or far too cold for life to survive. "On the treasure map of the Universe, one would be tempted to mark this planet with an X," says Xavier Delfosse, one of the scientists who discovered the planet. "Because of its temperature and relative proximity, this planet will most probably be a very important target of the future space missions dedicated to the search for extraterrestrial life." Gliese 581 is among the closest stars to us, just 20.5 light years away (about 120 trillion miles) in the constellation Libra. It is so dim it can be seen only with a good telescope. Because all planets are relatively so small and the light they give off so faint compared to their sun, finding exoplanets is extremely difficult unless they are huge. Those that have so far been detected have mostly been massive, Jupiter-like balls of gas that almost certainly cannot be home to life. This new planet - known for the time being as Gliese 581c - is a midget in comparison, being about 12,000 miles across (Earth is a little under 8,000 pole-to-pole). It has a mass five times that of Earth, probably made of the same sort of rock as makes up our world and with enough gravity to hold a substantial atmosphere. Astrobiologists - scientists who study the possibility of alien life - refer to a climate known as the Goldilocks Zone, where it is not so cold that water freezes and not so hot that it boils, but where it can lie on the planet's surface as a liquid. In our solar system, only one planet - Earth -lies in the Goldilocks Zone. Venus is far too hot and Mars is just too cold. This new planet lies bang in the middle of the zone, with average surface temperatures estimated to be between zero and 40c (32-102f). Lakes, rivers and even oceans are possible. It is not clear what this planet is made of. If it is rock, like the Earth, then its surface may be land, or a combination of land and ocean. Another possibility is that Gliese 581c was formed mostly from ice far from the star (ice is a very common substance in the Universe), and moved to the close orbit it inhabits today. In which case its entire surface will have melted to form a giant, planet-wide ocean with no land, save perhaps a few rocky islands or icebergs. The surface gravity is probably around twice that of the Earth and the atmosphere could be similar to ours. Although the new planet is in itself very Earth-like, its solar system is about as alien as could be imagined. The star at the centre - Gliese 581 - is small and dim, only about a third the size of our Sun and about 50 times cooler. The two other planets are huge, Neptune-sized worlds called Gliese 581b and d (there is no "a", to avoid confusion with the star itself). The Earth-like planet orbits its sun at a distance of only six million miles or so (our Sun is 93 million miles away), travelling so fast that its "year" only lasts 13 of our days. The parent star would dominate the view from the surface - a huge red ball of fire that must be a spectacular sight. It is difficult to speculate what - if any - life there is on the planet. If there is life there it would have to cope with the higher gravity and solar radiation from its sun. Just because Gliese 581c is habitable does not mean that it is inhabited, but we do know its sun is an ancient star - in fact, it is one of the oldest stars in the galaxy, and extremely stable. If there is life, it has had many billions of years to evolve. This makes this planet a prime target in the search for life. According to Seth Shostak, of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute in California, the Gliese system is now a prime target for a radio search. 'We had actually looked at this system before but only for a few minutes. We heard nothing, but now we must look again.' By 2020 at least one space telescope should be in orbit, with the capability of detecting signs of life on planets orbiting nearby stars. If oxygen or methane (tell-tale biological gases) are found in Gliese 581c's atmosphere, this would be good circumstantial evidence for life. Dr Malcolm Fridlund, a European Space Agency scientist, said the discovery of Gliese 581c was "an important step" on the road to finding life. "If this is a rocky planet, it's very likely it will have liquid water on its surface, which means there may also be life." The real importance is not so much the discovery of this planet itself, but the fact that it shows that Earth-like planets are probably extremely common in the Universe. There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone and many astronomers believe most of these stars have planets. The fact that almost as soon as we have built a telescope capable of detecting small, earth-like worlds, one turns up right on our cosmic doorstep, shows that statistically, there are probably billions of earths out there. As Seth Shostak says: "We've never found one close to being like the Earth until now. We are finding that Earth is not such an unusual puppy in the litter of planets." But are these alien Earths home to life? No one knows. We don't understand how life began on our world, let alone how it could arise anywhere else. There may be an awful lot of bugs and bacteria out there, and only a few worlds with what we would recognise as plants and animals. Or, of course, there may be nothing. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute uses radio telescopes to try to pick up messages sent by alien civilisations. Interestingly, Gliese 581c is so close to the Earth that if its putative inhabitants only had our level of technology, they could - just about - pick up some of our radio signals, such as the most powerful military transmitters. Quite what would happen if we for our part did receive a signal is unclear. "There is a protocol, buried away in the United Nations," says Dr Shostak. "The President would be told first, after the signal was confirmed by other observatories. But we couldn't keep such a discovery secret." It may be some time before we detect any such signals, but it is just possible that today we are closer than ever to finding life in the stars.
William Hill said it had shortened the odds on proving the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence from 1,000-1 to 100-1. Spokesman Graham Sharpe said: "We would face a possible eight-figure payout if it were to be confirmed that intelligent life of extra-terrestrial origin exists. We felt we had to react to the news that an earth-like planet which could support intelligent life had been discovered - after all, we don't know for sure that intelligent extraterrestrial life has not already been discovered." The new planet, so far unnamed, is 20.5 light years away and orbits a red dwarf star called Gliese 581.
I always thought there would be some planets out there that would be able to support humans, but I find it strange that the first thing scientists want to check out is if there was extra-terrestial life there. Does anyone know how a telescope would be able to tell if there is life, as discussed in the article?
One could try focusing radio-telescopes to listen if they've been using radio waves etc for communications. If they're at a similar stage to us x years before now, we could potentially listen in to them, all we'd need are "compatible receivers"
Interesting, I figured it was only a matter of time before habitable planets started to be found by astronomers. I'm sure there is life somewhere in the universe, and that would be amazing if life were discovered on such a planet. Unfortunately I don't see us going there any time soon. At 20.5 lightyears away it looks as if its going to be a while before we can check it out .
I'm curious what the odds are of finding an earth-like planet with similar gravity. With double the gravity as earth and increased solar radiation it hardly sounds like a "habitable" planet. At least not for humans.
On May 17 2010 14:32 Ciryandor wrote: One could try focusing radio-telescopes to listen if they've been using radio waves etc for communications. If they're at a similar stage to us x years before now, we could potentially listen in to them, all we'd need are "compatible receivers"
Would that really work? Afterall, 20 lightyears is pretty far away, do we have radio-telescopes powerful enough to pick up any radio waves from there?
On May 17 2010 14:32 Ciryandor wrote: One could try focusing radio-telescopes to listen if they've been using radio waves etc for communications. If they're at a similar stage to us x years before now, we could potentially listen in to them, all we'd need are "compatible receivers"
Yeah, that would be very cool. We haven't been around for very long and we've already been spamming radio waves into the sky for years .
On May 17 2010 14:26 Ysorigin wrote: Does anyone know how a telescope would be able to tell if there is life, as discussed in the article?
The way the article put it(detecting gases in the atmosphere), it sounds like the telescope would be a very powerful spectrophotometer that could examine the light coming from the planet and determine it's properties.
It wouldn't be able to detect the life itself, but signs that life is there. For example, oxygen is relatively scarce on rocky planets(nearly all of ours came from early life), so if there's a decent amount of it then it's a good sign for life on the planet.
On May 17 2010 14:32 Ciryandor wrote: One could try focusing radio-telescopes to listen if they've been using radio waves etc for communications. If they're at a similar stage to us x years before now, we could potentially listen in to them, all we'd need are "compatible receivers"
Would that really work? Afterall, 20 lightyears is pretty far away, do we have radio-telescopes powerful enough to pick up any radio waves from there?
I don't know anything about radio telescopes, but we've been using them to check out distant planets and stars for a while have we not? I suppose you would need some immense resolution to be able to detect subtle radio communications over that of the nearby star though.
I just want to live long enough for life to be discovered elsewhere whether it is microscopic in size or whatnot, this solar system or elsewhere. Will be a life changing day for everyone.
If there was intelligent life, I assume they would look extremely different due to the closeness of the sun and solar radiation etc. Maybe they would look like effort :D
On May 17 2010 14:32 Ciryandor wrote: One could try focusing radio-telescopes to listen if they've been using radio waves etc for communications. If they're at a similar stage to us x years before now, we could potentially listen in to them, all we'd need are "compatible receivers"
Would that really work? Afterall, 20 lightyears is pretty far away, do we have radio-telescopes powerful enough to pick up any radio waves from there?
Well it worked in Contact and that was written by Carl Sagan so I'm going to say yessir
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.
On May 17 2010 14:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I just want to live long enough for life to be discovered elsewhere whether it is microscopic in size or whatnot, this solar system or elsewhere. Will be a life changing day for everyone.
They found a shrimp on one of jupiter's moons. Forgot which one was it.
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.
Thats not how age works when you're traveling at that speed.
Anyways, this is very cool news..It's hard to imagine a world of water...just water holding more water to itself??
On May 17 2010 14:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I just want to live long enough for life to be discovered elsewhere whether it is microscopic in size or whatnot, this solar system or elsewhere. Will be a life changing day for everyone.
They found a shrimp on one of jupiter's moons. Forgot which one was it.
On May 17 2010 14:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I just want to live long enough for life to be discovered elsewhere whether it is microscopic in size or whatnot, this solar system or elsewhere. Will be a life changing day for everyone.
They found a shrimp on one of jupiter's moons. Forgot which one was it.
Huh? I assume you're talking about Europa and I havn't heard anything about life. I figure that would be a big deal.
On May 17 2010 14:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I just want to live long enough for life to be discovered elsewhere whether it is microscopic in size or whatnot, this solar system or elsewhere. Will be a life changing day for everyone.
They found a shrimp on one of jupiter's moons. Forgot which one was it.
It may not be long till we start colonizing these planets now , now im just thinking, would they use our time zone? or would they use theres? cause they would be like old while there still young? if that made any sense
Like 13 days for a year? so in a normal year there going to be 28 years old? interesting
On May 17 2010 14:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I just want to live long enough for life to be discovered elsewhere whether it is microscopic in size or whatnot, this solar system or elsewhere. Will be a life changing day for everyone.
They found a shrimp on one of jupiter's moons. Forgot which one was it.
On May 17 2010 14:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I just want to live long enough for life to be discovered elsewhere whether it is microscopic in size or whatnot, this solar system or elsewhere. Will be a life changing day for everyone.
They found a shrimp on one of jupiter's moons. Forgot which one was it.
Time dilation would mean that the faster we go, (nearer to light-speed), the slower time flows, but this only takes effect at very high speed, which is at approximately 10%+ of it. There IS a formula for calculating dilation, i.e. if travelling @ x% light speed, how much slower time would take compared to an Earth reference point.
However, human travel would be impractical as a whole. If we wanted to explore space, we won't be doing it ourselves. Instead, we'd probably be seeding it w/ robotic probes, which are more efficient and less risky over-all for long term travel, and it would also require a collective species effort to get them to relativistic speeds that would make travel in the interstellar medium possible.
As for detecting communications, it's almost guaranteed, because the bandwidth they'll be using is unpopulated by natural sources. We use bandwidth that no stellar nor natural process can interfere with, and any civilization would likely do the same.
On May 17 2010 14:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I just want to live long enough for life to be discovered elsewhere whether it is microscopic in size or whatnot, this solar system or elsewhere. Will be a life changing day for everyone.
They found a shrimp on one of jupiter's moons. Forgot which one was it.
I've always been fascinated by space travel and extraterrestrial life. I DO hope that with gene therapy and nanotechnology humans can prolong their lifes by absurd amounts to see this stuff happen. First extend the lives of scientists :D
On May 17 2010 14:45 Navi wrote: This is incredibly cool
Something new to learn every day, I suppose.
If there was intelligent life, I assume they would look extremely different due to the closeness of the sun and solar radiation etc. Maybe they would look like effort :D
haha i lol'd. Prolly not though - unless there were hefty deposits of nuclear gases and such...
Although this article is about 3 years old, and its since been found that the planet is unlikely to be habitable, it is thought provoking.
I think that scientists will find a way to definitively check for life, but the chance of finding intelligent life is pretty much zero. They would only find microbes. While finding extraterrestrial life may be glorious, it doesn't really mean anything for us earthlings (save for maybe use as evidence in creation arguments). It's not really going to affect our lives.
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.
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.
I always wonder... If there are actually aliens out there capable of travelling to this planet, is it really prudent to be throwing radio waves and other noise in their direction? While we would undoubtedly be fascinated by finding extraterrestrial life, what if finding alien species is nothing special to them and all we're doing with our radio waves is annoying them (sort've like a person constantly honking their horn annoys the crap out of the rest of us just sitting around trying to mind our own business).
Does anyone else ever wonder if we may be irking potentially violent alien species to capable of interstellar travel to come and annihilate or enslave humanity? I will go ahead and assume if they're capable of travelling between the stars to reach us, we'd probably be completely screwed in any conflict from a technological standpoint... And it's not even like we'd be able to communicate with them right off the bat to explain to them why we're harassing them either.
That is really cool. But being 20.5 light years away I fail to see how we would ever manage to get there. Communication would be really difficult as well.
It was about time that an Earth-like planet was found; everyone (scientists, at least) knew there were planets similar to Earth out there. Inevitably, other life within this universe of infinite proportions will be found, as well.
On May 17 2010 15:48 Two_DoWn wrote: lol at the "could have liquid water, necessary for life."
Who says water is the only possible compound capable of supporting life? Its just the one that won out on earth.
Water is crazy shit. Something about how its a polar molecule, when its liquid, and allows for the suspension and interaction of Ions like other liquids do not. It's some crazy mumbo jumbo- I don't pretend to understand it but it made sense when I heard it.
edit: Water is polar at the molecular level. It has a slightly negative side and a slightly positive side. This makes it bond magnetically to itself, so it has surface tension and remains liquid in a wide range of temperatures before becoming gas. Also, the polarity makes the positive side bond to Negative ions and the Negative side bond to Positive ions. This is called adhesion and allows the ions to be suspended in the water. This property is what makes molecules form in water that would normally not be able to form. Any atomic liquid (ie: Mercury) is not going to be polar and allow for diffusion of Ions. Likewise, larger liquid molecules don't usually form without the presence of water, and, even if they were present- aren't usually as neatly polar as water molecules are. The formation of proteins, carbon chains and lipids is essentially impossible without the suspension properties of water.
As cursor said, the properties of water make many chemical reactions possible that are impossible without it. It's also really hard for stuff to interact in general when it's not immersed in a fluid.
On May 17 2010 14:52 WarChimp wrote: It may not be long till we start colonizing these planets now , now im just thinking, would they use our time zone? or would they use theres? cause they would be like old while there still young? if that made any sense
Like 13 days for a year? so in a normal year there going to be 28 years old? interesting
How we would manage time on an alien world is a rather fun thing to think about. I think the Earth year would be acceptable for years on such worlds, but concepts like weeks and months could be problematic, as each world could have wildly different length days. What good is a seven day week when one day is 57 hours long?
On May 17 2010 15:42 On_Slaught wrote: Watch them name it Korhal or Char or even Aiur! God please! Hopefully there is a competition for naming rights. One of us could win!
It will be named Planet Starbucks or Planet McDonalds.
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.
Actually the kid would be a bit younger when he arrives.
In special relativity
t=t'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t is the time taken from our perspective (40 years) and t' is the time from the kids perspective so his increase in age would be t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=40years*sqrt(3/4)=34.6years.
Okay I did think when I started making this post that I'd end up with something a bit more impressive but alas no
The Earth-like planet that could be covered in oceans and may support life is 20.5 light years away, and has the right temperature to allow liquid water on its surface.
Besides the point in which i'm like dam science how the hell did you pull that kind of information from there.
I gg at the 20.5 light years away by the time we master a form a travel that can do that i would guess we probably learned how to Terra-form a planet.
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.
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.
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.
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?
On May 17 2010 16:32 semantics wrote: I gg at the 20.5 light years away by the time we master a form a travel that can do that i would guess we probably learned how to Terra-form a planet.
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.
Actually the kid would be a bit younger when he arrives.
In special relativity
t=t'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t is the time taken from our perspective (40 years) and t' is the time from the kids perspective so his increase in age would be t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=40years*sqrt(3/4)=34.6years.
Okay I did think when I started making this post that I'd end up with something a bit more impressive but alas no
It is impressive when you consider that he would be 51 Earth years old when he gets there. 41-34.6=6.4 years, which is around 15-17% not bad when considering that you'd need a LOT more speed and/or distance to be even getting to 30% or so.
On May 17 2010 15:40 Weasel- wrote: That is really cool. But being 20.5 light years away I fail to see how we would ever manage to get there. Communication would be really difficult as well.
Haha no kidding man, my cell has bad reception in my own home calling across the block, light years just seems like I would get a busy signal each time you know ;D
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.
Actually the kid would be a bit younger when he arrives.
In special relativity
t=t'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t is the time taken from our perspective (40 years) and t' is the time from the kids perspective so his increase in age would be t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=40years*sqrt(3/4)=34.6years.
Okay I did think when I started making this post that I'd end up with something a bit more impressive but alas no
I'm really confused by all of this theory of relativity... So let's say we've already habitated this distant planet. Now let's say we have a communication method which would also go 50% of lightspeed. So if I try to communicate with the distant planet It gets 40 years to send signal to the otherside and 40 years to return the answer. I'll be 80 years older. But.. if I travel by myself and return back I'll be only 68 years older?
Could someone explain how and most importantly why it works as it does?
On May 17 2010 18:46 KingofHearts wrote: 20 light years is pretty far away. instead of looking for new planets why dont people take care of their existence planet.
lol... i like this post. man is already looking for the next planet to wreck.
I love the mention of the Goldilocks Zone. This is definitely proof that our planet is not one of a kind like a lot of (mostly religious) people say. 1 in a billion to find a planet in the Goldilocks Zone, you say? Found one 20 light years away.
is this article old (from 2007)? The article says "of the 220 or so exoplanets found to date..." but Wikipedia says that as of 14-May-2010 we know of 454 extra solar planets.
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.
Actually the kid would be a bit younger when he arrives.
In special relativity
t=t'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t is the time taken from our perspective (40 years) and t' is the time from the kids perspective so his increase in age would be t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=40years*sqrt(3/4)=34.6years.
Okay I did think when I started making this post that I'd end up with something a bit more impressive but alas no
I'm really confused by all of this theory of relativity... So let's say we've already habitated this distant planet. Now let's say we have a communication method which would also go 50% of lightspeed. So if I try to communicate with the distant planet It gets 40 years to send signal to the otherside and 40 years to return the answer. I'll be 80 years older. But.. if I travel by myself and return back I'll be only 68 years older?
Could someone explain how and most importantly why it works as it does?
When you communicate using any kind of wave(radio, xray, whatever) those waves move at the speed of light, and because they are effectively massless, do not experience the effects relativity. Thus, communication between Earth and a planet 20 light years away will always take 20 years to get there and 20 years to get back.
People, or anything with mass, experience relativity as speed increases. So, if you're going 50% the speed of light and traveled for 40 years, you would only experience 34.6 years, while everyone around you moving at 'normal' speed would still experience the whole 40 years.
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.
Actually the kid would be a bit younger when he arrives.
In special relativity
t=t'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t is the time taken from our perspective (40 years) and t' is the time from the kids perspective so his increase in age would be t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=40years*sqrt(3/4)=34.6years.
Okay I did think when I started making this post that I'd end up with something a bit more impressive but alas no
I'm really confused by all of this theory of relativity... So let's say we've already habitated this distant planet. Now let's say we have a communication method which would also go 50% of lightspeed. So if I try to communicate with the distant planet It gets 40 years to send signal to the otherside and 40 years to return the answer. I'll be 80 years older. But.. if I travel by myself and return back I'll be only 68 years older?
Could someone explain how and most importantly why it works as it does?
When you communicate using any kind of wave(radio, xray, whatever) those waves move at the speed of light, and because they are effectively massless, do not experience the effects relativity. Thus, communication between Earth and a planet 20 light years away will always take 20 years to get there and 20 years to get back.
People, or anything with mass, experience relativity as speed increases. So, if you're going 50% the speed of light and traveled for 40 years, you would only experience 34.6 years, while everyone around you moving at 'normal' speed would still experience the whole 40 years.
So if I go orbiting around the planet on a shuttle that travels like 90% of speed of light i'd experience 40*sqrt(1-(9/10c)^2/c^2) = aprox. 17.5 years. And when I return back everyone else has experienced 40 years, so I'd be 22.5 years younger than my previous peers? Could I make a presumption that when reaching speed of light(although it's said to be impossible) time freezes?
Sadly cuts to Nasa funding has made them cancel/delay alot of projects, one of which was to launch a spacecraft to the edge of our solar system (where the voyager currenlty is) equipped with a special telescope to see exoplanets. It needs to be outside the solar system so interference from the sun can be minimized. There found the webpage :
On May 17 2010 14:32 Ciryandor wrote: One could try focusing radio-telescopes to listen if they've been using radio waves etc for communications. If they're at a similar stage to us x years before now, we could potentially listen in to them, all we'd need are "compatible receivers"
Would that really work? Afterall, 20 lightyears is pretty far away, do we have radio-telescopes powerful enough to pick up any radio waves from there?
Actually I was surprised that we found one this close to us. 20 lightyears on the cosmic scale is pretty much equivalent to nearly nothing. The closest star to us is 4.5 lightyears away, so this one is only 5 times that distance. Granted it's still super super far if we actually wanna travel there though.
On May 17 2010 14:32 Ciryandor wrote: One could try focusing radio-telescopes to listen if they've been using radio waves etc for communications. If they're at a similar stage to us x years before now, we could potentially listen in to them, all we'd need are "compatible receivers"
Would that really work? Afterall, 20 lightyears is pretty far away, do we have radio-telescopes powerful enough to pick up any radio waves from there?
Actually I was surprised that we found one this close to us. 20 lightyears on the cosmic scale is pretty much equivalent to nearly nothing. The closest star to us is 4.5 lightyears away, so this one is only 5 times that distance. Granted it's still super super far if we actually wanna travel there though.
It's not too far if you want to accelerate a probe and shoot it there like a projectile (then somehow slow it down, maybe with a ion drive) at relativistic speeds, you could get a probe there in maybe 40 years travel time and get some images and data back in another 20 years, so that's "only" 60 years. Which is, cosmologically speaking, a really short time.
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.
Actually the kid would be a bit younger when he arrives.
In special relativity
t=t'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t is the time taken from our perspective (40 years) and t' is the time from the kids perspective so his increase in age would be t*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=40years*sqrt(3/4)=34.6years.
Okay I did think when I started making this post that I'd end up with something a bit more impressive but alas no
I'm really confused by all of this theory of relativity... So let's say we've already habitated this distant planet. Now let's say we have a communication method which would also go 50% of lightspeed. So if I try to communicate with the distant planet It gets 40 years to send signal to the otherside and 40 years to return the answer. I'll be 80 years older. But.. if I travel by myself and return back I'll be only 68 years older?
Could someone explain how and most importantly why it works as it does?
When you communicate using any kind of wave(radio, xray, whatever) those waves move at the speed of light, and because they are effectively massless, do not experience the effects relativity. Thus, communication between Earth and a planet 20 light years away will always take 20 years to get there and 20 years to get back.
People, or anything with mass, experience relativity as speed increases. So, if you're going 50% the speed of light and traveled for 40 years, you would only experience 34.6 years, while everyone around you moving at 'normal' speed would still experience the whole 40 years.
So if I go orbiting around the planet on a shuttle that travels like 90% of speed of light i'd experience 40*sqrt(1-(9/10c)^2/c^2) = aprox. 17.5 years. And when I return back everyone else has experienced 40 years, so I'd be 22.5 years younger than my previous peers? Could I make a presumption that when reaching speed of light(although it's said to be impossible) time freezes?
That's correct on both counts, but the second is also wrong because you could never reach the speed of light since it by definition requires you to have no mass.
What? I know of Gliese 581c for something like 2 years, it is not something new. And it is not a good candidate for life supporting planet either, Gliese 581d is much better for this. Also there is a message collected and sent to Gliese581d you can see the progress here: http://www.hellofromearth.net/
On May 20 2010 07:34 Aelfric wrote: What? I know of Gliese 581c for something like 2 years, it is not something new. And it is not a good candidate for life supporting planet either, Gliese 581d is much better for this. Also there is a message collected and sent to Gliese581d you can see the progress here: http://www.hellofromearth.net/
god you guys are so naive.... Sure lets listen in on the new earth-like planet and in doing so alert the planet's overmind of our exact location!!! Sound familiar anyone?!
On May 17 2010 14:32 Ciryandor wrote: One could try focusing radio-telescopes to listen if they've been using radio waves etc for communications. If they're at a similar stage to us x years before now, we could potentially listen in to them, all we'd need are "compatible receivers"
ehhh, I think when they say they want to see if there is alien life, they probably don't mean they want to see if the planet is inhabited by humanoid creatures with technology, but rather are there things like bacteria and other primitive life forms living on the planet.
On May 17 2010 20:57 ~ava wrote: is this article old (from 2007)? The article says "of the 220 or so exoplanets found to date..." but Wikipedia says that as of 14-May-2010 we know of 454 extra solar planets.
Finding planets in the galixy is actually not as simple as they make it seem. You can only investigate some kinds of radiation. Light is hardly ever used. Of all the light you see 99.99 procent is from the stars. Detecting a planed near a sun is like finding a green litle rock on a grass field the size of 10 foodball fields. Then you know there is something orbiting the star. And you still gotta filter out the contents of it. Basicly we've only found 454 things orbiting a star while we've already found thousands if not millions of stars / galaxys
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.
Ahah! But there's the great part, fifty years for him would be a couple hundred years for us!
On May 17 2010 15:25 JinMaikeul wrote: I always wonder... If there are actually aliens out there capable of travelling to this planet, is it really prudent to be throwing radio waves and other noise in their direction? While we would undoubtedly be fascinated by finding extraterrestrial life, what if finding alien species is nothing special to them and all we're doing with our radio waves is annoying them (sort've like a person constantly honking their horn annoys the crap out of the rest of us just sitting around trying to mind our own business).
Does anyone else ever wonder if we may be irking potentially violent alien species to capable of interstellar travel to come and annihilate or enslave humanity? I will go ahead and assume if they're capable of travelling between the stars to reach us, we'd probably be completely screwed in any conflict from a technological standpoint... And it's not even like we'd be able to communicate with them right off the bat to explain to them why we're harassing them either.
What are you talking about. We have siege tanks and vultures with mines.
Those protoss have nothing on us
But seriously sooner or later humanity will be able to get a confirmation about lifeforms outside of earth..I am hopeful that there aren't many people left thinking that we are the only ones in the universe big as it is.. I wonder how would religious folks react if it was confirmed that some form of life on other planets (even something as primitive as bacteria). Would that be sufficient to make them stfu finally?
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.
Ahah! But there's the great part, fifty years for him would be a couple hundred years for us!
Probably the closest to "time travel" we'll ever get, granted we find some way to travel that fast in the first place :O
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
Woo, a new planet to trash once earth is cleaned out! It's a good thing that planet's 20 light years away; it has time to prepare for the worst house guests in the universe
Humankind will kill itself off long before traveling light years is even feasible. Sorry to be a debbie-downer. :/
It's actually extremely unlikely that humanity will kill itself off. In the same way that directed self-interests fall into place to create a working economy, the human race's existence is assured by the continued desire to live of each of its individuals. Problems that threaten the species will be dealt with at extreme cost if necessary.
On May 20 2010 07:34 Aelfric wrote: What? I know of Gliese 581c for something like 2 years, it is not something new. And it is not a good candidate for life supporting planet either, Gliese 581d is much better for this. Also there is a message collected and sent to Gliese581d you can see the progress here: http://www.hellofromearth.net/
They'll definitely speak English on Gliese 581d.
So you're saying it's stupid to send radio waves there in english and it is not worth it. What do you even suggest? Not to send anything? If you would decide to send some message to there wouldn't you try to send in any language in case they are capable of understanding something? Don't be so naive.
I honestly have to say, I do quite enjoy the possibility of discovering other earth-like planets. It's interesting to think of what could exist on any planets like ours.
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.
I'm not sure just because a planet is earth like it means that the chances it will have life will be better. For one thing, I dont think there is a proper explanation for how life began on earth. I mean sure we had water and a stable atmosphere, but we can't say that those factors led to life. to show taht you'd would need to find tons of planets already with life and compare their attributes to see which ones are the most prevalent, and even then, correlation != cause so you wouldn't know what really begins extra terrestial life. For that you'dhave to observe life developing on a planet from point zero.
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.
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.
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.
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 07:22 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
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.
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 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 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 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?
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 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.
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?
On May 21 2010 12:04 hellobye wrote: i heard your mom was an inhabitable planet.
i just had to
yo momma's so fat that astronomers think she is a habitable planet?
Dont even start derailing this thread -_-
I don't understand how people denied that there was extraterrestrial life or other habitable planets for so long... In a giant universe it wouldn't make sense for only 1 planet to have life on it.
On May 21 2010 12:04 hellobye wrote: i heard your mom was an inhabitable planet.
i just had to
yo momma's so fat that astronomers think she is a habitable planet?
Dont even start derailing this thread -_-
I don't understand how people denied that there was extraterrestrial life or other habitable planets for so long... In a giant universe it wouldn't make sense for only 1 planet to have life on it.
Up until really the 1940's did we really start understanding the concept of a "galaxy". Before that, we thought they were just "fuzzy nebulae". And the sky was full of quite a lot of them...
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 am personally not religious and have no place for belief in miracles or the paranormal but if you honestly believe that by our current reasoning that the odds of life forming is a realistic, then your flat out wrong. We can't currently explain this phenomena with science.
Life as we know breaks a lot of fundamental rules and it will be a long time before we can explain how intelligent minds like our own formed from the chaotic universe we live in.
On May 21 2010 12:04 hellobye wrote: i heard your mom was an inhabitable planet.
i just had to
yo momma's so fat that astronomers think she is a habitable planet?
Dont even start derailing this thread -_-
I don't understand how people denied that there was extraterrestrial life or other habitable planets for so long... In a giant universe it wouldn't make sense for only 1 planet to have life on it.
Its not unfair to assume we are the only intelligent species. Many astronomers have demonstrated that there is only one sentient race in the universe via the drake equation and other mathematical formulas. This is no where near damning evidence, but like i said its not unheard of to believe.
Also, we do live in a "silent" universe. If there are truly that many alien races out there, then we probably would have heard them by now. Most every process releases some form of electromagnetic radiation. We have yet to detect an organized process that has definite alien orgins whether it be radio signals or light
Hmm its interesting that there could be so many more planets like this in the universe. If we're looking for another place to move to in case anything happens to Earth, then distance may be a problem....because 20 light years is pretty far away...hah....
but yeah, it would be interesting to see what 2x gravity would feel like to us.
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 am personally not religious and have no place for belief in miracles or the paranormal but if you honestly believe that by our current reasoning that the odds of life forming is a realistic, then your flat out wrong. We can't currently explain this phenomena with science.
Life as we know breaks a lot of fundamental rules and it will be a long time before we can explain how intelligent minds like our own formed from the chaotic universe we live in.
On May 21 2010 12:04 hellobye wrote: i heard your mom was an inhabitable planet.
i just had to
yo momma's so fat that astronomers think she is a habitable planet?
Dont even start derailing this thread -_-
I don't understand how people denied that there was extraterrestrial life or other habitable planets for so long... In a giant universe it wouldn't make sense for only 1 planet to have life on it.
Its not unfair to assume we are the only intelligent species. Many astronomers have demonstrated that there is only one sentient race in the universe via the drake equation and other mathematical formulas. This is no where near damning evidence, but like i said its not unheard of to believe.
Also, we do live in a "silent" universe. If there are truly that many alien races out there, then we probably would have heard them by now. Most every process releases some form of electromagnetic radiation. We have yet to detect an organized process that has definite alien orgins whether it be radio signals or light
its my understanding that the drake equation is pretty much worthless and not science at all. Theres too many variables that are unknown and are just guessed at with 0 evidence at all.
On May 21 2010 13:03 blahman3344 wrote: Hmm its interesting that there could be so many more planets like this in the universe. If we're looking for another place to move to in case anything happens to Earth, then distance may be a problem....because 20 light years is pretty far away...hah....
but yeah, it would be interesting to see what 2x gravity would feel like to us.
To put it in to perspective, astronomers estimate that there's between 200 and 400 billion (400,000,000,000) stars in the milky way galaxy. If you can assume a low "average" number of planets per star, say... 2.5 for nice easy numbers (have to take in to account stars with 0 planets and binary/tertiary systems that may share planets), that means there's between 500 billion and 1 trillion planets in our galaxy. The estimated number of planets capable of supporting life is less than 2%. Let's say it's 1%, for easy, conservative estimates. That means, in the milky way alone, there's around 5 to 10 billion planets capable of supporting human life on them.
If we ever achieve faster than light travel, overpopulation will never be an issue again.
On May 21 2010 12:54 CorporalClegg1 wrote: Its not unfair to assume we are the only intelligent species. Many astronomers have demonstrated that there is only one sentient race in the universe via the drake equation and other mathematical formulas.
rofl what
1. Drake's own numbers gave an estimate of 10 intelligent species in our galaxy
2. The numbers to be plugged into the equation are fuzzy best guesses and it matters little what the result is anyway.
Idk if this is on topic or not but, not just a month ago it was proven that time is a bendable wavelength altered by mass and speed.
This was proven by the LHC, A normal hadron last roughly 1 second, but while travailing in the LHC it last upwards of 30 seconds. Time in fact moves slower while you are close to a big mass.
It was theorized that if we had a capable ship that could travel the speed of light and was able to orbit the black hole that's at the center of the milky way, 1 year on earth would be 6 months on the ship.
Also random note that if you travel faster or at the speed of light, you wouldn't be able to be seen since our eyes are only able to pick up refractions of light and since your moving so fast light is unable to refract against you.
I am trying to find the article i read, link soon.
amazing read, i remember watching Stephen hawkins documentary "into the universe"
he says something like, if there really were aliens out there, it might be better to not confront them right away as they may be a highly superior race and just mine our planet for its resources or w/e
I find it interesting that people would rather believe that everything we know is created by aliens than by God...
I don't. Clearly, life in the universe is possible. Clearly, advancing technology at an exponential rate is possible.
I can plainly understand why logically thinking people feel that these two facts and logical deductions hold more weight then a book of miracles.
I have to agree with this. The bible was created to control people and somehow it has managed to exist up until today, dunno how. Believing in goods is so 1000 years ago seriously.
Anyways, yeah i've also watched the Stephen Hawkings documentary series, it was absolutely stunning to watch it in HD 720p. Especially the episode about Time Travelling was really an eye opener for me, I never thought it could be possible. Hawking uses such good every day examples of everything that it's really easy for almost anyone to understand how things work etc.
Hell, if you're interested of stuff like this I suggest you watch these right away. Because this is some epic shit.
On May 21 2010 12:54 CorporalClegg1 wrote: Also, we do live in a "silent" universe. If there are truly that many alien races out there, then we probably would have heard them by now. Most every process releases some form of electromagnetic radiation. We have yet to detect an organized process that has definite alien orgins whether it be radio signals or light
What you're getting wrong here is that the universe is huge so the probability of having other intelligent races is huge. However, what our race can see with our telescopes is only a very tiny portion of it. The probability of finding intelligent life in this tiny portion of the universe is close to zero.
Right now our best bet of making contact with an alien race is not we finding them but they having far superior technologies so they can find us. Or wait till our technology becomes advanced enough so we can explore a larger part of space.
Hell, our technology is so pathetic at the moment that we haven't left the solar system yet (AFAIK voyager will leave the solar system in a few years time, so then we will have finally visited outer space)
Except its not just our solar system, heck even if we could explore the entire milky way galaxy, its still a very very tiny portion of the universe. The universe is infinitely huge your mind could not handle.
Except its not just our solar system, heck even if we could explore the entire milky way galaxy, its still a very very tiny portion of the universe. The universe is infinitely huge your mind could not handle.
On May 21 2010 16:45 Stuslegend wrote: amazing read, i remember watching Stephen hawkins documentary "into the universe"
he says something like, if there really were aliens out there, it might be better to not confront them right away as they may be a highly superior race and just mine our planet for its resources or w/e
This is interesting.
Imagine there's a highly superior race, more advanced than Protoss, which is very likely btw, as there are billions and trillions of stars, and each with their own planets.
They find our planet, and since meeting another intelligent race is nothing new to them, they just destroy us and take the planets resources then leave. All of this could very well be done in a day.
On the other hand, it's possible they've seen our planet and know that it's dieing anyways (lol), they just leave us the hell alone and not bother, and "farm" all the other planets around us, which could also be another theory why it's so hard for us to find other planet with life.
Another theory is that any intelligent civilization that manages to reach a certain level of technological & biological evolution will inevitable destroy itself one way or another before they'd reach the point where they could realistically travel over far distances in space. I like this theory, it brings calm to my mind.
On May 21 2010 19:59 hifriend wrote: Another theory is that any intelligent civilization that manages to reach a certain level of technological & biological evolution will inevitable destroy itself one way or another before they'd reach the point where they could realistically travel over far distances in space. I like this theory, it brings calm to my mind.
This is very likely as well (look at us as an example), and was also mentioned on Stephen Hawking's video. However, there are bound to be some that manages to cross that point.
On May 21 2010 19:59 hifriend wrote: Another theory is that any intelligent civilization that manages to reach a certain level of technological & biological evolution will inevitable destroy itself one way or another before they'd reach the point where they could realistically travel over far distances in space. I like this theory, it brings calm to my mind.
This is very likely as well (look at us as an example), and was also mentioned on Stephen Hawking's video. However, there are bound to be some that manages to cross that point.
Perhaps the alien civilizations out there simply haven't had the time to evolve to the point where space travel is possible. It took 4.5 billion years to get where we are now here on Earth, why should it be much different any other place in the Universe(That is assuming other solar systems are around the same age as our own, which I admit I have no idea about).
Or perhaps it is just technologically impossible to travel with the speeds necessary to get anywhere in the Universe because of the vast distances. Probably more likely imo...
I don't think that we'll ever be (or any race, for that matter) technologically advanced enough where speed itself is the determining factor in these types of situations. If it's theoretically impossible to go faster than the speed of light, and going at the speed of light means 20+ years to get to the nearest planet... it just wouldn't be possible to have those sci-fi like colonies on multiple planets. The colonies wouldn't be in any real contact with eachother, and would drift apart significantly. Hell, they'd probably eventually start to physically evolve to better suit their lifestyle on that planet, since there's bound to be differences. Even slightly less or more gravity would, I imagine, impact things greatly.
For any sort of vast space travel to exist, I would think that the proper direction to go would be that whole 'wormwhole' business.
Isn't it also possible that we might be the most technologically advanced species in this universe? It might be sad and narcissistic, but it's a possibility.
EPT
. 
