User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 11:14:50 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: because radio becomes indistinguishable from the cosmic background radiation after a very short distance. No one can hear us and we can't hear them because radio sucks for interstellar communication. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ...  you might want to re-think this. if it were true, then radiotelescopes would not function very well. IIRC, we're still talking to voyager on 50 watts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 11:37:26 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The math won't work for you. There isn't enough time in the 15 billion year old universe. Try something simpler, I have a 50 character sentence, not a Shakespear sonnet. Write a program that will allow a PC to generate a million such sentences per second and give everyone on Earth such a PC. How long before you can guarantee finding my simple sentence. Do the math. 26 ^ 50 = 10 ^81. With all those PC's going, the 15 billion year old universe would have to exisit a billion x billion x billion times. The universe is finite. So I can see how the Earth is it for sentient life forms. If there are others, why haven't we heard their radio stations. Every civilization within 100 light years of Earth should be able to see our old TV shows and hear our radio broadcasts. Why can't we hear anything? I know, maybe they extinguished themselves already. But it is a very quiet universe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Chimpanzes Typwriters Shakespeare Go... The math won't work for you. There isn't enough time in the 15 billion year old universe. Try something simpler, I have a 50 character sentence, not a Shakespear sonnet. Write a program that will allow a PC to generate a million such sentences per second and give everyone on Earth such a PC. How long before you can guarantee finding my simple sentence. Do the math. 26 ^ 50 = 10 ^81. With all those PC's going, the 15 billion year old universe would have to exisit a billion x billion x billion times. The universe is finite. So I can see how the Earth is it for sentient life forms. If there are others, why haven't we heard their radio stations. Every civilization within 100 light years of Earth should be able to see our old TV shows and hear our radio broadcasts. Why can't we hear anything? I know, maybe they extinguished themselves already. But it is a very quiet universe. Honest question here. How did you prove that time and space are finite? If so, what was just outside of the limits of both? Something other than space and time? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 11:45:32 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you might want to re-think this. if it were true, then radiotelescopes would not function very well. IIRC, we're still talking to voyager on 50 watts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...
you might want to re-think this. if it were true, then radiotelescopes would not function very well. IIRC, we're still talking to voyager on 50 watts. 50 watts of highly focused RF energy directed at where its antenna will be when the signal reaches it. Omnidirectional (non controlled) emissions are like the symbol *. Looked at close up, it seems almost a dot. with almost 360 degree coverage, but as each line extends out from the center it becomes much farther from its nearest neighbor. The same goes for photons. The farther out, the less the field strength. You can collimate an energy beam like a laser to keep all its energy in a straight line, and it'll be invisible to anyone not hit by it. It'll stay strong that way but it's completely directional. Most natural phenomena don't do that and we don't beam laser comms out into the cosmos yet either. We just use directional RF which helps keep the energy levels up a bit. Even if we focus it though, it's only going to be strong at the focal point. It'll drop off a lot after that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 11:50:56 AM EDT
[#4]
We're also using our radio telescopes to listen to truly gargantuan transmittors. We're using them to listen to the radiation of continuous thermonuclear meltdowns the size of our sun.
That's a lot of terrawatts of RF being put out, and it still takes a focused antenna the size of a lake and ungodly amounts of signal processing to dig out what we're looking at from all those eons past. Like I said. We don't know shit. We can't know shit until we can get there or figure out an FTL scanner that can let us look at what's going on way over there right now. When you do that, and look at a decent fraction of this galaxy's two hundred billion odd planets, and none of them have anything interesting, come back and tell us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 11:56:13 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yeah, I don't believe that for one second. statistically, it's probable that there is at least one other planet with life on it. I think the people on your side of the coin are just as misguided. The basic assumptions that you start with to map out any probability are ultimately unprovable. When you start with made up stuff, you end up with made up stuff. We just don't know one way or the other. Why the insistence on guessing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:18:57 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 50 watts of highly focused RF energy directed at where its antenna will be when the signal reaches it. Omnidirectional (non controlled) emissions are like the symbol *. Looked at close up, it seems almost a dot. with almost 360 degree coverage, but as each line extends out from the center it becomes much farther from its nearest neighbor. The same goes for photons. The farther out, the less the field strength. You can collimate an energy beam like a laser to keep all its energy in a straight line, and it'll be invisible to anyone not hit by it. It'll stay strong that way but it's completely directional. Most natural phenomena don't do that and we don't beam laser comms out into the cosmos yet either. We just use directional RF which helps keep the energy levels up a bit. Even if we focus it though, it's only going to be strong at the focal point. It'll drop off a lot after that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ... 50 watts of highly focused RF energy directed at where its antenna will be when the signal reaches it. Omnidirectional (non controlled) emissions are like the symbol *. Looked at close up, it seems almost a dot. with almost 360 degree coverage, but as each line extends out from the center it becomes much farther from its nearest neighbor. The same goes for photons. The farther out, the less the field strength. You can collimate an energy beam like a laser to keep all its energy in a straight line, and it'll be invisible to anyone not hit by it. It'll stay strong that way but it's completely directional. Most natural phenomena don't do that and we don't beam laser comms out into the cosmos yet either. We just use directional RF which helps keep the energy levels up a bit. Even if we focus it though, it's only going to be strong at the focal point. It'll drop off a lot after that. per JPL, the received signal strength from voyagers 1&2 is 10^-16 watt, or 0.0000000000000001 watt. the entire energy generation of the spacecraft are currently <300W. point being, even very, very weak radio transmissions are quite discernable against background radio noise.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:40:41 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
per JPL, the received signal strength from voyagers 1&2 is 10^-16 watt, or 0.0000000000000001 watt. the entire energy generation of the spacecraft are currently <300W. point being, even very, very weak radio transmissions are quite discernable against background radio noise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... 50 watts of highly focused RF energy directed at where its antenna will be when the signal reaches it. Omnidirectional (non controlled) emissions are like the symbol *. Looked at close up, it seems almost a dot. with almost 360 degree coverage, but as each line extends out from the center it becomes much farther from its nearest neighbor. The same goes for photons. The farther out, the less the field strength. You can collimate an energy beam like a laser to keep all its energy in a straight line, and it'll be invisible to anyone not hit by it. It'll stay strong that way but it's completely directional. Most natural phenomena don't do that and we don't beam laser comms out into the cosmos yet either. We just use directional RF which helps keep the energy levels up a bit. Even if we focus it though, it's only going to be strong at the focal point. It'll drop off a lot after that. per JPL, the received signal strength from voyagers 1&2 is 10^-16 watt, or 0.0000000000000001 watt. the entire energy generation of the spacecraft are currently <300W. point being, even very, very weak radio transmissions are quite discernable against background radio noise. At this miniscule range? Of course it is. How far away are they? A few AU? We're not even up to a decent fraction of a single light year yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:41:56 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... you might want to re-think this. if it were true, then radiotelescopes would not function very well. IIRC, we're still talking to voyager on 50 watts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:45:33 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the people on your side of the coin are just as misguided. The basic assumptions that you start with to map out any probability are ultimately unprovable. When you start with made up stuff, you end up with made up stuff. We just don't know one way or the other. Why the insistence on guessing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
yeah, I don't believe that for one second. statistically, it's probable that there is at least one other planet with life on it. I think the people on your side of the coin are just as misguided. The basic assumptions that you start with to map out any probability are ultimately unprovable. When you start with made up stuff, you end up with made up stuff. We just don't know one way or the other. Why the insistence on guessing? Actually, we have one data point in favor of life on planets. We know for a fact that on the one planet we've explored, there's a LOT of life, and that it's adapted to almost every environment on the planet, even into hydrothermal vents under conditions that would destroy anyone from the surface. Life is pretty adaptive. So from our one data point, we make a guess. My guess is that if it happened once, it might have happened twice. The shift in probablility between 1:100,000,000,000 on one side and 2:100,000,000,000 on the other side isn't much of a leap to make. So sure. I'll guess the coin lands on yes rather than no. The odds are in my favor. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:48:54 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IIRC, we're still talking to voyager on 50 watts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: IIRC, we're still talking to voyager on 50 watts. true--and we're talking with it in the equivalent of whispers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:02:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, we have one data point in favor of life on planets. We know for a fact that on the one planet we've explored, there's a LOT of life, and that it's adapted to almost every environment on the planet, even into hydrothermal vents under conditions that would destroy anyone from the surface. Life is pretty adaptive. So from our one data point, we make a guess. My guess is that if it happened once, it might have happened twice. The shift in probablility between 1:100,000,000,000 on one side and 2:100,000,000,000 on the other side isn't much of a leap to make. So sure. I'll guess the coin lands on yes rather than no. The odds are in my favor. Life? Sure, the galaxy is probably teeming with life. Simple, single-celled life. Complex organisms? With nervous systems? Who talk to each other, build radios and starships? There's good arguments against those odds. rare earth hypothesis |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:10:51 PM EDT
[#12]
This is a basic High School math/science question.
We know the possibility of life exists (Earth) and that the Universe appears to be infinite. Therefore, anything that is possible is also probable in an infinite sample. Not only does extraterrestrial life likely exist it is likely prolific and occurs beyond our ability to comprehend. The issue is the vastness of it all. We are like an isolated tribe desert dwellers contemplating the existence of Whales. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:13:06 PM EDT
[#13]
"Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”
? Arthur C. Clarke |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:13:32 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ? Arthur C. Clarke Truer words were never uttered... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:14:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is a basic High School math/science question. We know the possibility of life exists (Earth) and that the Universe appears to be infinite. Therefore, anything that is possible is also probable in an infinite sample. Not only does extraterrestrial life likely exist it is likely prolific and occurs beyond our ability to comprehend. The issue is the vastness of it all. We are like an isolated tribe desert dwellers contemplating the existence of Whales. Very good post and I totally agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:30:57 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Life? Sure, the galaxy is probably teeming with life. Simple, single-celled life. Complex organisms? With nervous systems? Who talk to each other, build radios and starships? There's good arguments against those odds. rare earth hypothesis Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Actually, we have one data point in favor of life on planets. We know for a fact that on the one planet we've explored, there's a LOT of life, and that it's adapted to almost every environment on the planet, even into hydrothermal vents under conditions that would destroy anyone from the surface. Life is pretty adaptive. So from our one data point, we make a guess. My guess is that if it happened once, it might have happened twice. The shift in probablility between 1:100,000,000,000 on one side and 2:100,000,000,000 on the other side isn't much of a leap to make. So sure. I'll guess the coin lands on yes rather than no. The odds are in my favor. Life? Sure, the galaxy is probably teeming with life. Simple, single-celled life. Complex organisms? With nervous systems? Who talk to each other, build radios and starships? There's good arguments against those odds. rare earth hypothesis Planets suitable to life like ours might be rare. We still don't even know that for sure though. If there's one thing studying life has taught me though, it's that it's really really flexible in terms of where it can exist, and that if there's ANY life on a planet and it's been there a while, it will have adapted to fit its environment and thrive. I guess that's why I love the idea of Star Trek so much despite its libtard leanings. The idea of exploring what's out there appeals to me at a visceral level. One other thing is that our particular planet isn't particularly suited to evolve life like us. Not in the least. We evolved to fit IT. It wasn't designed for us to inhabit. Ergo, whatever the conditions where life starts, it will evolve to suit them. I'm betting that's just about a universal constant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:37:22 PM EDT
[#17]
When life first evolved here on earth the planet was very different and inhospitable compared to today. Life terraformed earth into what we have today.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:41:39 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809183/We-universe-Professor-Brian-Cox-says-alien-life-impossible-humanity-unique.html?ito=social-facebook That's pretty bold The biological process which lead to intelligent life on earth was a fluke that is unlikely to have been repeated anywhere else in the universe, claims Professor Brian Cox.
The presenter and scientist blames a series of 'evolutionary bottlenecks' for the lack of extraterrestrial life on other planets, despite there being a mind-bogglingly vast number of them in the galaxy. Humanity miraculously overcame them in a chance binding of two single cells merging somewhere in the mists of time, he said. 'There is only one advanced technological civilisation in this galaxy and there has only ever been one - and that's us. We are unique. I hereby convict Professor Cox (heh) of being too arrogant, and far too small-minded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:41:55 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When life first evolved here on earth the planet was very different and inhospitable compared to today. Life terraformed earth into what we have today. Kinda makes you wonder what other conditions at the start might have produced...... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:52:00 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Planets suitable to life like ours might be rare. We still don't even know that for sure though. If there's one thing studying life has taught me though, it's that it's really really flexible in terms of where it can exist, and that if there's ANY life on a planet and it's been there a while, it will have adapted to fit its environment and thrive. I guess that's why I love the idea of Star Trek so much despite its libtard leanings. The idea of exploring what's out there appeals to me at a visceral level. One other thing is that our particular planet isn't particularly suited to evolve life like us. Not in the least. We evolved to fit IT. It wasn't designed for us to inhabit. Ergo, whatever the conditions where life starts, it will evolve to suit them. I'm betting that's just about a universal constant. NAIL --> HEAD We're very "different". Even from other primates/bipeds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:34:19 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
special snowflakes all of us  hahaha |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:37:37 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When life first evolved here on earth the planet was very different and inhospitable compared to today. Life terraformed earth into what we have today. Life didn't have any influence over our orbital distance, planet size, moon size, water content, core heat and iron content, axis tilt, or primary atmospheric gas. Nor the bombardment rate, galaxial position, nor gas giant spacing. Life happened to adjust to all those changes, with its primary achievement so far has been to turn the atmosphere into a ~20% oxygen mix. And still, over the vast time of our planet's existence, life has remained stunningly simple. Simple animals only appeared 600 MYA, fish only 500 MYA. Life that can post to internet boards took 4.5 billion years to get there, a third of the lifespan of the Universe. Plenty of time for it to happen elsewhere, and have faded away already. And even if intelligent life has evolved hundreds of times in our galaxy, if it only lasts a thousand years, that still leaves vast gaps of time between them on average. What does a civilization do when they discover all the fundamental laws governing the universe, can explain everything, but still find it takes multiple lifetimes to travel between the stars? And discovers there is no need to , since they can simulate everything they can observe down to the last detail? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:50:51 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Life didn't have any influence over our orbital distance, planet size, moon size, water content, core heat and iron content, axis tilt, or primary atmospheric gas. Nor the bombardment rate, galaxial position, nor gas giant spacing. Life happened to adjust to all those changes, with its primary achievement so far has been to turn the atmosphere into a ~20% oxygen mix. And still, over the vast time of our planet's existence, life has remained stunningly simple. Simple animals only appeared 600 MYA, fish only 500 MYA. Life that can post to internet boards took 4.5 billion years to get there, a third of the lifespan of the Universe. Plenty of time for it to happen elsewhere, and have faded away already. And even if intelligent life has evolved hundreds of times in our galaxy, if it only lasts a thousand years, that still leaves vast gaps of time between them on average. What does a civilization do when they discover all the fundamental laws governing the universe, can explain everything, but still find it takes multiple lifetimes to travel between the stars? And discovers there is no need to , since they can simulate everything they can observe down to the last detail? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When life first evolved here on earth the planet was very different and inhospitable compared to today. Life terraformed earth into what we have today. Life didn't have any influence over our orbital distance, planet size, moon size, water content, core heat and iron content, axis tilt, or primary atmospheric gas. Nor the bombardment rate, galaxial position, nor gas giant spacing. Life happened to adjust to all those changes, with its primary achievement so far has been to turn the atmosphere into a ~20% oxygen mix. And still, over the vast time of our planet's existence, life has remained stunningly simple. Simple animals only appeared 600 MYA, fish only 500 MYA. Life that can post to internet boards took 4.5 billion years to get there, a third of the lifespan of the Universe. Plenty of time for it to happen elsewhere, and have faded away already. And even if intelligent life has evolved hundreds of times in our galaxy, if it only lasts a thousand years, that still leaves vast gaps of time between them on average. What does a civilization do when they discover all the fundamental laws governing the universe, can explain everything, but still find it takes multiple lifetimes to travel between the stars? And discovers there is no need to , since they can simulate everything they can observe down to the last detail? How old is the universe and how do you know it's only that old? What was here before there was a universe? Again, how do you know? I ask because you're right. There's been plenty of time for us to evolve, be squashed by a volcanic cloud, re-evolve, as reptiles, take an asteroid strike, re-evolve as mammals, and eventually one species got smart and capable enough to do what we've done. It happened pretty recently, but there's no reason other planets might not have had similar things happen. Or not. We simply don't know. I'm comfortable betting that if you checked each planet in each in the known universe, you'd find life on some of em. Would it be intelligent life? Fuck if I know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:58:24 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Life didn't have any influence over our orbital distance, planet size, moon size, water content, core heat and iron content, axis tilt, or primary atmospheric gas. Nor the bombardment rate, galaxial position, nor gas giant spacing. Life happened to adjust to all those changes, with its primary achievement so far has been to turn the atmosphere into a ~20% oxygen mix. And still, over the vast time of our planet's existence, life has remained stunningly simple. Simple animals only appeared 600 MYA, fish only 500 MYA. Life that can post to internet boards took 4.5 billion years to get there, a third of the lifespan of the Universe. Plenty of time for it to happen elsewhere, and have faded away already. And even if intelligent life has evolved hundreds of times in our galaxy, if it only lasts a thousand years, that still leaves vast gaps of time between them on average. What does a civilization do when they discover all the fundamental laws governing the universe, can explain everything, but still find it takes multiple lifetimes to travel between the stars? And discovers there is no need to , since they can simulate everything they can observe down to the last detail? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When life first evolved here on earth the planet was very different and inhospitable compared to today. Life terraformed earth into what we have today. Life didn't have any influence over our orbital distance, planet size, moon size, water content, core heat and iron content, axis tilt, or primary atmospheric gas. Nor the bombardment rate, galaxial position, nor gas giant spacing. Life happened to adjust to all those changes, with its primary achievement so far has been to turn the atmosphere into a ~20% oxygen mix. And still, over the vast time of our planet's existence, life has remained stunningly simple. Simple animals only appeared 600 MYA, fish only 500 MYA. Life that can post to internet boards took 4.5 billion years to get there, a third of the lifespan of the Universe. Plenty of time for it to happen elsewhere, and have faded away already. And even if intelligent life has evolved hundreds of times in our galaxy, if it only lasts a thousand years, that still leaves vast gaps of time between them on average. What does a civilization do when they discover all the fundamental laws governing the universe, can explain everything, but still find it takes multiple lifetimes to travel between the stars? And discovers there is no need to , since they can simulate everything they can observe down to the last detail? http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/earth/pdf/evolution_earth_atmosphere.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:07:03 PM EDT
[#25]
8.8 Billion earth similar planets estimated in this galaxy.
Also consider that life might evolve on planets completely different from ours. Gas giants might have layers that have developed life, much like most of our life is within a couple thousand feet of sea level. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:19:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Planets suitable to life like ours might be rare. We still don't even know that for sure though. If there's one thing studying life has taught me though, it's that it's really really flexible in terms of where it can exist, and that if there's ANY life on a planet and it's been there a while, it will have adapted to fit its environment and thrive. I guess that's why I love the idea of Star Trek so much despite its libtard leanings. The idea of exploring what's out there appeals to me at a visceral level. One other thing is that our particular planet isn't particularly suited to evolve life like us. Not in the least. We evolved to fit IT. It wasn't designed for us to inhabit. Ergo, whatever the conditions where life starts, it will evolve to suit them. I'm betting that's just about a universal constant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually, we have one data point in favor of life on planets. We know for a fact that on the one planet we've explored, there's a LOT of life, and that it's adapted to almost every environment on the planet, even into hydrothermal vents under conditions that would destroy anyone from the surface. Life is pretty adaptive. So from our one data point, we make a guess. My guess is that if it happened once, it might have happened twice. The shift in probablility between 1:100,000,000,000 on one side and 2:100,000,000,000 on the other side isn't much of a leap to make. So sure. I'll guess the coin lands on yes rather than no. The odds are in my favor. Life? Sure, the galaxy is probably teeming with life. Simple, single-celled life. Complex organisms? With nervous systems? Who talk to each other, build radios and starships? There's good arguments against those odds. rare earth hypothesis Planets suitable to life like ours might be rare. We still don't even know that for sure though. If there's one thing studying life has taught me though, it's that it's really really flexible in terms of where it can exist, and that if there's ANY life on a planet and it's been there a while, it will have adapted to fit its environment and thrive. I guess that's why I love the idea of Star Trek so much despite its libtard leanings. The idea of exploring what's out there appeals to me at a visceral level. One other thing is that our particular planet isn't particularly suited to evolve life like us. Not in the least. We evolved to fit IT. It wasn't designed for us to inhabit. Ergo, whatever the conditions where life starts, it will evolve to suit them. I'm betting that's just about a universal constant. One of these things we have learned about life is that radiation kills. Due to a happenstance event from an earlier collision the earth has a larger than normal iron core that sets up an intense magnetic field that protects life on earth from killing radiation. Even with the earth being in the solar Goldilocks Zone for liquid water without that larger than normal iron core life would probably not exist on earth or if it did it would be a very low level. To have advanced life you need a stable climate and earth has one because of the large moon, which is a happenstance event from the same earlier collision. You also need to have the right planet position in the solar system to not get bombarded by frequent extinction event comets and asteroids every few years. Then there is this galactic Goldilocks Zone that produces only a small number of stars that have the right elements and are not bombarded by intense galactic radiation. Funny thing is that the Drake Equation does include any of these things. The more you learn about how the evolution of the earth and the happenstance events that created it compared to other planets that we know the more it is possible that we could be the only one with life. There is a good possibility that the earth is unique or that earth like planets that can sustain life as we know it are very, very few and very, very far between, if they exist or ever have existed in the past or ever will exist in the future. We have been brainwashed with science fiction our whole lives and expect life to be elsewhere but that may just be a fantasy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:25:16 PM EDT
[#27]
Radiation kills life that like ours, evolved under a shielding of the planet's magnetic field and atmosphere.
Life that evolved without that might even feed on radiation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:26:36 PM EDT
[#28]
What I'm saying is that even though planets like ours might be really uncommon, there might be life so different from what we know that it thrives in its own environment which could be totally different from ours.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:29:56 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a bold claim considering how large the universe is. Even if that "fluke" was a one in a billion chance, that would mean plenty of planet out there with some kind of life on them. That's the thing about the universe. It's really, very, much, a lot big. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:30:54 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Radiation kills life that like ours, evolved under a shielding of the planet's magnetic field and atmosphere. Life that evolved without that might even feed on radiation. We only have one model for life and in that model radiation kills. If you have proof of other life lets see it. Until we get another data point you have nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:34:05 PM EDT
[#31]
Considering how incredibly huge the universe is, it would be nearly impossible for there to not be intelligent lifeforms out there other than humans.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:51:42 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One of these things we have learned about life is that radiation kills. Due to a happenstance event from an earlier collision the earth has a larger than normal iron core that sets up an intense magnetic field that protects life on earth from killing radiation. Even with the earth being in the solar Goldilocks Zone for liquid water without that larger than normal iron core life would probably not exist on earth or if it did it would be a very low level. To have advanced life you need a stable climate and earth has one because of the large moon, which is a happenstance event from the same earlier collision. You also need to have the right planet position in the solar system to not get bombarded by frequent extinction event comets and asteroids every few years. Then there is this galactic Goldilocks Zone that produces only a small number of stars that have the right elements and are not bombarded by intense galactic radiation. Funny thing is that the Drake Equation does include any of these things. The more you learn about how the evolution of the earth and the happenstance events that created it compared to other planets that we know the more it is possible that we could be the only one with life. There is a good possibility that the earth is unique or that earth like planets that can sustain life as we know it are very, very few and very, very far between, if they exist or ever have existed in the past or ever will exist in the future. We have been brainwashed with science fiction our whole lives and expect life to be elsewhere but that may just be a fantasy. The drake equation is a tool of estimation... it isn't some hard and fast mathematical truth or physical law... Pessimistic values put into it are just as valid as optimistic ones. Why does everyone get their panties in a wad over the Drake equation and claim it is some how wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:57:20 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
per JPL, the received signal strength from voyagers 1&2 is 10^-16 watt, or 0.0000000000000001 watt. the entire energy generation of the spacecraft are currently <300W. point being, even very, very weak radio transmissions are quite discernable against background radio noise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... 50 watts of highly focused RF energy directed at where its antenna will be when the signal reaches it. Omnidirectional (non controlled) emissions are like the symbol *. Looked at close up, it seems almost a dot. with almost 360 degree coverage, but as each line extends out from the center it becomes much farther from its nearest neighbor. The same goes for photons. The farther out, the less the field strength. You can collimate an energy beam like a laser to keep all its energy in a straight line, and it'll be invisible to anyone not hit by it. It'll stay strong that way but it's completely directional. Most natural phenomena don't do that and we don't beam laser comms out into the cosmos yet either. We just use directional RF which helps keep the energy levels up a bit. Even if we focus it though, it's only going to be strong at the focal point. It'll drop off a lot after that. per JPL, the received signal strength from voyagers 1&2 is 10^-16 watt, or 0.0000000000000001 watt. the entire energy generation of the spacecraft are currently <300W. point being, even very, very weak radio transmissions are quite discernable against background radio noise. And as said, only if they're point right straight at you. Anything else is going to follow a 1 / radius^3 type of rule and this drops off... well exponentially.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 5:02:32 PM EDT
[#34]
Boy, I'm glad that's settled!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 5:04:04 PM EDT
[#35]
God is alive and well and living somewhere around Orion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 5:10:52 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Honest question here. How did you prove that time and space are finite? If so, what was just outside of the limits of both? Something other than space and time? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Chimpanzes Typwriters Shakespeare Go... The math won't work for you. There isn't enough time in the 15 billion year old universe. Try something simpler, I have a 50 character sentence, not a Shakespear sonnet. Write a program that will allow a PC to generate a million such sentences per second and give everyone on Earth such a PC. How long before you can guarantee finding my simple sentence. Do the math. 26 ^ 50 = 10 ^81. With all those PC's going, the 15 billion year old universe would have to exisit a billion x billion x billion times. The universe is finite. So I can see how the Earth is it for sentient life forms. If there are others, why haven't we heard their radio stations. Every civilization within 100 light years of Earth should be able to see our old TV shows and hear our radio broadcasts. Why can't we hear anything? I know, maybe they extinguished themselves already. But it is a very quiet universe. Honest question here. How did you prove that time and space are finite? If so, what was just outside of the limits of both? Something other than space and time? an abstract. Once that little "premier particle/Photon/Whatever" speeds through that inch it becomes a part of the whole shebang. Until it does though... just an abstract. We use the same model every day in the form of calendars. I can "See" next Tuesday predicted (With a lot of certainty) on my wall right now but I can't experience it until it rolls around. For now IT'S an "abstract".  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 5:53:35 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We only have one model for life and in that model radiation kills. If you have proof of other life lets see it. Until we get another data point you have nothing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Radiation kills life that like ours, evolved under a shielding of the planet's magnetic field and atmosphere. Life that evolved without that might even feed on radiation. We only have one model for life and in that model radiation kills. If you have proof of other life lets see it. Until we get another data point you have nothing. True. All I have is an understanding that life adapts really well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:01:43 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You'd be wrong there. It does in fact include them. All in 1 factor... the percent of all planets that are capable of supporting life. You take all those things into account when coming up with your estimate for the value of that factor... or you don't and have an additional amount of error range in your result. The drake equation is a tool of estimation... it isn't some hard and fast mathematical truth or physical law... Pessimistic values put into it are just as valid as optimistic ones. Why does everyone get their panties in a wad over the Drake equation and claim it is some how wrong? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
One of these things we have learned about life is that radiation kills. Due to a happenstance event from an earlier collision the earth has a larger than normal iron core that sets up an intense magnetic field that protects life on earth from killing radiation. Even with the earth being in the solar Goldilocks Zone for liquid water without that larger than normal iron core life would probably not exist on earth or if it did it would be a very low level. To have advanced life you need a stable climate and earth has one because of the large moon, which is a happenstance event from the same earlier collision. You also need to have the right planet position in the solar system to not get bombarded by frequent extinction event comets and asteroids every few years. Then there is this galactic Goldilocks Zone that produces only a small number of stars that have the right elements and are not bombarded by intense galactic radiation. Funny thing is that the Drake Equation does include any of these things. The more you learn about how the evolution of the earth and the happenstance events that created it compared to other planets that we know the more it is possible that we could be the only one with life. There is a good possibility that the earth is unique or that earth like planets that can sustain life as we know it are very, very few and very, very far between, if they exist or ever have existed in the past or ever will exist in the future. We have been brainwashed with science fiction our whole lives and expect life to be elsewhere but that may just be a fantasy. The drake equation is a tool of estimation... it isn't some hard and fast mathematical truth or physical law... Pessimistic values put into it are just as valid as optimistic ones. Why does everyone get their panties in a wad over the Drake equation and claim it is some how wrong? In order to accurately estimate something you have to have the pertinent inputs. The Drake Equation does not do that. It ignores the happenstance events that to the development of life on earth. It doesn't not include all the factors so it is not valid as anything but a discussion point. It has absolutely no basis in fact for any kind of estimation. Of these inputs: R* = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations) fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space 
The only input we really have a handle on is R*. The inputs for everything else we pull out of our ass because we have no data to support assigning a value and several of them could very well be zero. In fact all of them may be zero except star formation. We are moving towards coming up with a factor for fp but even that we are not there yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:05:06 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True. All I have is an understanding that life adapts really well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Radiation kills life that like ours, evolved under a shielding of the planet's magnetic field and atmosphere. Life that evolved without that might even feed on radiation. We only have one model for life and in that model radiation kills. If you have proof of other life lets see it. Until we get another data point you have nothing. True. All I have is an understanding that life adapts really well. All you know is that life on earth adapts really well given the environment of earth. That doesn't mean it would adapt on other planets with other possibly more hostile environments. For instance, it may not be able to adapt because of killer radiation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:05:40 PM EDT
[#40]
So far I've seen just as much evidence for life on other planets as I have seen for the existence of God.
So as far as I am concerned, either one is just as likely as the other. Probability != Evidence, so "really big numbers" are not particularly persuasive on this front. From a logical standpoint, the rule of Falsifiability applies, which is to say that our inability to disprove the existence of life on other planets does not constitute evidence in favor of life on other planets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:07:38 PM EDT
[#41]
Bullshit....With what we *know* of the known universe it's incredibly small-minded to think a spark of life began on just one planet out of billions.
Science is settled BS again... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:09:32 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So far I've seen just as much evidence for life on other planets as I have seen for the existence of God. So as far as I am concerned, either one is just as likely as the other. Probability != Evidence, so "really big numbers" are not particularly persuasive on this front. From a logical standpoint, the rule of Falsifiability applies, which is to say that our inability to disprove the existence of life on other planets does not constitute evidence in favor of life on other planets. To me it is illogical to think that the universe created itself out of nothing. That is magic. To me it is much more logical to think that we are here because of some intelligent design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:14:37 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bullshit....With what we *know* of the known universe it's incredibly small-minded to think a spark of life began on just one planet out of billions. Science is settled BS again... If the universe if finite then that means there can be unique things in it. One of the unique things in this universe may be life on earth. Our "small-minded" ideas are based upon on what we know. Until we get more data points than only one then we have absolutely no idea if we alone or not and to speculate otherwise is nothing more than thinking with with our guts, probably influenced by science fiction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:14:48 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To me it is illogical to think that the universe created itself out of nothing. That is magic. To me it is much more logical to think that we are here because of some intelligent design. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So far I've seen just as much evidence for life on other planets as I have seen for the existence of God. So as far as I am concerned, either one is just as likely as the other. Probability != Evidence, so "really big numbers" are not particularly persuasive on this front. From a logical standpoint, the rule of Falsifiability applies, which is to say that our inability to disprove the existence of life on other planets does not constitute evidence in favor of life on other planets. To me it is illogical to think that the universe created itself out of nothing. That is magic. To me it is much more logical to think that we are here because of some intelligent design.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:15:09 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All you know is that life on earth adapts really well given the environment of earth. That doesn't mean it would adapt on other planets with other possibly more hostile environments. For instance, it may not be able to adapt because of killer radiation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Radiation kills life that like ours, evolved under a shielding of the planet's magnetic field and atmosphere. Life that evolved without that might even feed on radiation. We only have one model for life and in that model radiation kills. If you have proof of other life lets see it. Until we get another data point you have nothing. True. All I have is an understanding that life adapts really well. All you know is that life on earth adapts really well given the environment of earth. That doesn't mean it would adapt on other planets with other possibly more hostile environments. For instance, it may not be able to adapt because of killer radiation. We didn't think life could exist inside hydrothermal vents at the ocean's floor.... Because of killer radiation........ On which an entire ecosystem feeds. Whatever form life takes, it will either thrive by being compatible with the local environment or it won'texist. That's sort of an iron law of evolution. It is arrogance to assume that because we are one way that's the only kind of life that could exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:25:18 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We didn't think life could exist inside hydrothermal vents at the ocean's floor.... Because of killer radiation........ On which an entire ecosystem feeds. Whatever form life takes, it will either thrive by being compatible with the local environment or it won'texist. That's sort of an iron law of evolution. It is arrogance to assume that because we are one way that's the only kind of life that could exist. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Radiation kills life that like ours, evolved under a shielding of the planet's magnetic field and atmosphere. Life that evolved without that might even feed on radiation. We only have one model for life and in that model radiation kills. If you have proof of other life lets see it. Until we get another data point you have nothing. True. All I have is an understanding that life adapts really well. All you know is that life on earth adapts really well given the environment of earth. That doesn't mean it would adapt on other planets with other possibly more hostile environments. For instance, it may not be able to adapt because of killer radiation. We didn't think life could exist inside hydrothermal vents at the ocean's floor.... Because of killer radiation........ On which an entire ecosystem feeds. Whatever form life takes, it will either thrive by being compatible with the local environment or it won'texist. That's sort of an iron law of evolution. It is arrogance to assume that because we are one way that's the only kind of life that could exist. Life on earth evolved from a environment conducive for life and then adapted to harsher environments. That doesn't mean it can be created in the harsher environments. We have absolutely no idea how life is created. We cannot recreate it ourselves. We know about evolution but nothing about how life can be created by itself. I mentioned it before but I will have to repeat it. We only have one model for life and that is organic and we know the rules for organic life and it has to be pretty damn good and that goodness was created on earth by mostly happenstance events that may or may not be elsewhere in the universe. With only that model we can't automatically assume that something exist that we have never seen before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:27:24 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ooh, interesting concept. Would the archangels be God's Delta team? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What if more than one god exists...and they are at war.. Would the archangels be God's Delta team? I hope not. One of them founded Islam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:32:25 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To me it is illogical to think that the universe created itself out of nothing. That is magic. To me it is much more logical to think that we are here because of some intelligent design. Could not possibly agree more. I've been saying that same thing for years now. Who's the bigger believer in fairies and unicorns... the person who believes in a 100% literal interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago? Or the person who thinks that the universe spontaneously created itself from a tiny egg? And yet, you have people on both sides of that $3 bill who think that the people on the other side are the complete fools. Seems like there's a LOT of faith being exercised on both sides there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:33:46 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if more than one god exists...and they are at war.. Ancients vs Ori. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 6:40:44 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could not possible agree more. I've been saying that same thing for years now. Who's the bigger believer in fairies and unicorns... the person who believes in a 100% literal interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago? Or the person who thinks that the universe spontaneously created itself from a tiny egg? And yet, you have people on both sides of that $3 bill who think that the people on the other side are the complete fools. Seems like there's a LOT of faith being exercised on both sides there. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: To me it is illogical to think that the universe created itself out of nothing. That is magic. To me it is much more logical to think that we are here because of some intelligent design. Could not possible agree more. I've been saying that same thing for years now. Who's the bigger believer in fairies and unicorns... the person who believes in a 100% literal interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago? Or the person who thinks that the universe spontaneously created itself from a tiny egg? And yet, you have people on both sides of that $3 bill who think that the people on the other side are the complete fools. Seems like there's a LOT of faith being exercised on both sides there. The idea that all this had to have been "Built" by "someone" (Who has origins that can't be conceived of?!!! ) VERSUS.....ANY other explanation. As Carl points out,...."We can skip a step" |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
