Viewing 40 posts - 281 through 320 (of 366 total)
  • Moon Landing Hoax? Channel 5 now!
  • Premier Icon yunki
    Free Member

    who’s to say that isn’t the case

    uh oh… be careful..

    some of the militant science disciples on here have been known to turn inside out in an apoplectic rage if anyone dares to suggest a theorem that cannot be substantiated by hard evidence and thorough peer based review..

    Premier Icon singletracked
    Free Member

    Have you ever thought they might not be able to survive in our atmosphere?

    But statistically, there would be lots of ‘They’ some of them would be able to survive in our atmosphere

    The thing about alien life forces, it in reality we only know what we know and are limited by our knowledge and intelligence such that it is. Therefore, aliens appearing in a time / matter we don’t know, will not be obvious to us.

    Yup, i can see that, but it still means they have been here. Do you believe that?

    Two things that strike me as an example; EE Doc Smiths Series (Gaseous and mentally apparent life forms) and the “Marble” containing a universe in MIB – now, who’s to say that isn’t the case – and it could well be that our limited understanding / Einstein is currently being raucaously laughed at by other forms of life that may (or may not) surround us.

    don’t know these

    Premier Icon singletracked
    Free Member

    Yeah, but sadly an infinite number of them are infinitely far away

    And infinity is a long journey even at the speed of light.

    Ok, that explains a bit, but some would still be nearer even if lots were further away, wouldn’t they?

    Because if they were so far away that nothing from there could reach here (infinite distance), then that wouldn’t be part of our universe would it?

    Premier Icon scuzz
    Free Member

    Yup, i can see that, but it still means they have been here

    The time since the universe began is not infinite.
    Unles we’re doing the infinite recurring universes thing, in which case there has been a universe where Hitler and Jesus were the same person.

    Premier Icon singletracked
    Free Member

    The time since the universe began is not infinite.

    Ok, but 13 billion years is still quite a long time, and light / stuff could travel quite a long way in that time.

    Unles we’re doing the infinite recurring universes thing, in which case there has been a universe where Hitler and Jesus were the same person.

    Well, ok, if that’s the nature of infinite recurring universes. i can’t see why that would be strange

    Premier Icon scuzz
    Free Member

    Because if they were so far away that nothing from there could reach here (infinite distance), then that wouldn’t be part of our universe would it?

    It would reach here, given infinite time. We just wouldn’t likely be around to experience it.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Full Member

    Because if they were so far away that nothing from there could reach here (infinite distance), then that wouldn’t be part of our universe would it?

    Yes

    Premier Icon singletracked
    Free Member

    Because if they were so far away that nothing from there could reach here (infinite distance), then that wouldn’t be part of our universe would it?
    Yes

    OK, i see by some definitions that is true. I was thinking of universes as disconnected space-times.

    Premier Icon Kryton57
    Full Member

    some of the militant science disciples on here have been known to turn inside out in an apoplectic rage if anyone dares to suggest a theorem that cannot be substantiated by hard evidence and thorough peer based review..

    Really? I hadn’t noticed.

    Yup, i can see that, but it still means they have been here. Do you believe that?

    Based on what I wrote, there is no way to prove or disprove it, unless you can show me a life form that is clearly not from this planet and is on a “plane” that my limited Human senses can work with.

    Premier Icon singletracked
    Free Member

    Based on what I wrote, there is no way to prove or disprove it, unless you can show me a life form that is clearly not from this planet and is on a “plane” that my limited Human senses can work with.

    Yeah, but do you believe it has happened?

    Premier Icon miketually
    Full Member

    I think it is more likely your own lack of understanding which is the barrier

    Quite possibly. As I said earlier, I’m not an expert on set theory (or anything).

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Full Member

    Put it on a local scale. Lets say you and I start back-to-back then walk directly away from each other for an hour.

    After an hour I decide I miss the banter, so I turn around and start walking in your direction. But as you’re still walking I’ll never catch you up even though we were once right next to each other.

    Now scale that up to 13 odd billion years and the expansion of space-time in all directions. Most of the universe is “unreachable” even at light speed.

    And even if we could somehow go at light speed it would still take a long time to get to the parts we can “reach” (e.g. we only know of 41 stars that are within 15 light years of Earth)

    Premier Icon singletracked
    Free Member

    Most of the universe is “unreachable” even at light speed.

    I kind of see and don’t see this. Yes i get the bit about parts of the universe heading away from each other. I guess i’m just not sure what ‘most’ means in this context.

    And even if we could somehow go at light speed it would still take a long time to get to the parts we can “reach” (e.g. we only know of 41 stars that are within 15 light years of Earth)

    But I’m not suggesting that these spacemen left anytime in recent history. Even if the left half the life of the universe ago, that’s still an awful long way they could have got, even subluminally.

    Premier Icon singletracked
    Free Member

    Quite possibly. As I said earlier, I’m not an expert on set theory (or anything).

    Ok, but it’s not set theory

    Premier Icon MrWoppit
    Free Member

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syBtO1r6mZM[/video]

    Premier Icon scuzz
    Free Member

    that’s still an awful long way they could have got, even subluminally.

    But it’s nothing compared to infinity. The numbers need to at least approach infinity for any of this to apply.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Full Member

    Even if the left half the life of the universe ago, that’s still an awful long way they could have got, even subluminally.

    But, even if there was an intelligent alien race out there capable of fast interstellar space travel that long ago, why would they set out on a mission, that would likely take them thousands of years and huge amounts of resources, to visit our particular uninhabited planet (as it was then) out of all the choice they have?

    I’m sure any civilisation so advanced would have much more interesting things to do.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Free Member

    Simply playing the odds here. Space is vast. The Milky Way is a few hundred billion stars, and that’s just our own back yard. As a rough estimate, there’s a few hundred billion other galaxies too, all containing stars. That’s *handwave* 10^23 stars; ie, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 separate solar systems, potentially like the one we’ve got. And that’s probably a conservative estimate, based on figures I’ve just pulled out of my chuff.

    The exact set of circumstances for life to be created is in itself highly unlikely (which the goddish love to remind us), but when you’re playing with such big numbers, the unlikely becomes really rather likely indeed. The odds of winning the lottery are astronomically low, yet people do, week in week out.

    The problem is that multiplying a really large number by really small number doesn’t necessarily result in anything other than another really small number – that’s a typical calculation fallacy when you start playing with really big numbers. The lottery example is no proof at all, as in that case the odds of winning are carefully calculated so that you do get winners every week (otherwise nobody would play) – in fact the odds of winning the jackpot are something like 1 in 14 million, which no astronomer would describe as astronomically low.

    Say for example that the chances of intelligent life forming on any given planet are 1 in 10^30. Then even given your theoretical 10^23 inhabitable planets the chances of life forming on any one of those is still only 1 in a million. Now I don’t know what the real probability of intelligent life forming is, but then neither does anybody else on this thread, and I’d suggest it’s just as likely to be less than in in 10^23 as it is to be more than that. Yes, there is a very real possibility that we are the only ones here.

    I don’t believe anybody is seriously suggesting the universe out there is infinite are they? That appears to be the argument a lot of the more recent discussion is relying on, without anybody challenging the validity of the initial assumption. 10^23 is nowhere near infinity.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Full Member

    Now I don’t know what the real probability of intelligent life forming is, but then neither does anybody else on this thread

    That’s the crux, isn’t it. So you can’t say it’s “not likely” any more than I can say it’s “likely.”

    I said earlier that I believe there’s other life out there. “Believe” is probably a bit strong; I really don’t know, but there’s certainly a possibility, and I’d like to think that the numbers came up more than once. Whether they actually did or not, who knows.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Full Member

    The problem is that multiplying a really large number by really small number doesn’t necessarily result in anything other than another really small number

    What if you multiply lots of them?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

    Premier Icon Kryton57
    Full Member

    If the Universe isn’t infinite, what is “outside” of it?

    Premier Icon Junkyard
    Free Member

    We dont know as we canot see it

    some of the militant science disciples on here have been known to turn inside out in an apoplectic rage if anyone dares to suggest a theorem that cannot be substantiated by hard evidence and thorough peer based review.. sometimes I come on here and deliver some hippy drug induced drivel about stonhenege, laylines and the cosmic universe i discovered whilst mashed and its like you guys like want like evidence and shit well Dude screw you

    FTFY

    The thing is if we have competing theorems [accounts] what else can we do other than look at the evidence

    Premier Icon joao3v16
    Free Member

    The thing is if we have competing theorems [accounts] what else can we do other than look at the evidence

    How do you know if the evidence has been interpreted correctly?

    If the Universe isn’t infinite, what is “outside” of it?

    Think of it like a really big version of The Truman Show 🙂

    Premier Icon MrWoppit
    Free Member

    Kryton57 – Member

    If the Universe isn’t infinite, what is “outside” of it?

    Nothing. Now try and picture what “nothing” is like. I don’t mean a space with nothing in it, because a space is defined by either what’s in it or around it – a boundary is “something”. I mean nothing. Not even 3-dimenSional space….

    Premier Icon singletracked
    Free Member

    If the Universe isn’t infinite, what is “outside” of it?

    Nothing, it’s like asking what was there before the Big Bang

    Not even 3-dimentional space….

    yeah, and no ‘time’

    Premier Icon Junkyard
    Free Member

    How do you know if the evidence has been interpreted correctly?

    What do you mean?

    Premier Icon joao3v16
    Free Member

    How do you know if the evidence has been interpreted correctly?

    What do you mean?

    🙂 I suspect you know exactly whatI mean …

    Premier Icon Kryton57
    Full Member

    Mr Woppit – Member

    Kryton57 – Member

    If the Universe isn’t infinite, what is “outside” of it?

    Nothing. Now try and picture what “nothing” is like. I don’t mean a space with nothing in it, because a space is defined by either what’s in it or around it – a boundary is “something”. I mean nothing. Not even 3-dimenSional space….

    But how do you and Singletracked know that?

    Premier Icon singletracked
    Free Member

    Well, that’s pretty much the definition of a Universe

    Premier Icon Kryton57
    Full Member

    singletracked – Member
    Well, that’s pretty much the definition of a Universe

    …according to the boundaries of human knowledge and interlect, yes. Thats not to say that beyond our own arrogance of assuming we know everything, actually we don’t.

    Premier Icon miketually
    Full Member

    Ok, but it’s not set theory

    I did tell you I wasn’t an expert.

    I’m sure any civilisation so advanced would have much more interesting things to do.

    One theory is that any intelligence capable of interstellar travel will also be capable of building a Matrix-like construct capable of satisfying their every base desire and that once your civilisation develops that you’ve no hope of getting boring things like building interstellar craft done.

    So, no little green men will visit Earth, because they’re all getting their rocks off in Ultra HD VR.

    Premier Icon singletracked
    Free Member

    So, no little green men will visit Earth, because they’re all getting their rocks off in Ultra HD VR

    That would have been much more useful spend than the space programme

    Premier Icon aracer
    Free Member

    What if you multiply lots of them?

    Handily, the answer to that is given at the link you provided:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation_results

    oh, and also:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Criticism

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Free Member

    Afternoon folks. I’m liking this thread now.

    But, if its just really really really really big, what’s that, over there, on the other side of it?

    It can be finite but closed. Like the surface of a planet. Imagine how surprised early man would have been if he’d been able to simply keep walking in a straight line and end up back where he started.

    would it not seem likely that life might have evolved differently somewhere else, whereby water was not required to sustain it etc?

    Well not really likely, no. See, water is incredible and bizarre stuff. It has a huge list of unique properties that make it one of the universe’s strangest substances, which seems weird to us since it’s so ubiquitous. Its molecules are polarised (ie they have a positively charged end and a negatively charged end), which (I think) means that a very large number of chemicals can dissolve in it. It’s been called the universal solvent for this reason. So that means that water can (and often does) have loads of chemicals floating around in it in a way that they can all meet each other and react. This clearly makes it much much easier for life to evolve. And once it does, it can be mobile and meet lots of other nutrients to eat or other life to interact with. It’s considered extremely likely that water is a pre-requisite for life to exist.

    Likewise carbon. Our life is carbon based, because carbon readily forms covalent bonds which can create long and very complex molecules. These molecules can incorporate the complexity required to create stuff like DNA and proteins. Other elements are not at all suitable for this.

    So chances are other life on other planets needs water and will be surrounded by lots of carbon-based organic compounds.

    Other than “the universe is really really big so there might be a bit more life somewhere” … seems a bit of a presumptious

    Not really – the universe is made of the same elements in similar proportions wherever we look. So given the right temperatures for liquid water, and enough of it, why would what happened here not happen there?

    we have not identified anything trying to make contact with us, and we’ve found a massive total of absolutely zero evidence of life anywhere outside of our own atmosphere.

    That’s cos the distances are so big. If faster than light travel is indeed impossible, then it’s quite UNlikely that any of this life would be able to travel here in a context that’s acceptable to them.

    Remember there are pre-requisites for the evolution of life.

    The early universe was just hydrogen. You have to wait for that hydrogen to coalesce into stars, burn all the way up, start creating other elements in nuclear reactions, then explode in supernovae and spread those other elements around the universe in gas and dust clouds, NEW stars to form from this dust along with planets from the heavier elements, then these planets to stabilise enough to start life evolving. Basically, life isn’t possible with the first generation of stars so only second generation ones can support life – like ours. So that cuts time frame down a lot. And once you have a planet stable enough, it has to exist for long enough without catastrophe for life to appear.

    Given that, intelligent life is only likely to be what, a couple of million years old at best. So for it to reach us, it has to be within a few million light years of us. The infinite probability arguments fal down there because there’s not THAT much space and planets within a few million light years, comparitively speaking. If you consider the light speed barrier, most creatures are unlikely to be interested in spending millions of years in deep space, so you need to cut that down to what, a few hundred light years MAYBE if a society was long-sighted enogh to commit lots of people and resources to an ark style mission that won’t deliver anything for hundreds of years. And a few hundred light years is naff all. IF there is anyone within that kind of distance (which is much less likely) then they are not really likely to be sending people over here. Especially as they won’t know we exist until a few hundred years’ time when they start receiving our radio noise.

    So in summary – yes, likely that life exists out there somewhere, rather unlikely that we’ll ever meet it.

    Have you ever thought they might not be able to survive in our atmosphere?

    We can’t survive on the moon, didn’t stop us going there.

    If the Universe isn’t infinite, what is “outside” of it?

    If space is the universe, then by definition there’s nothing outside it. You’re not thinking in terms of curved geometry.

    What’s 25,000 miles away from here in a straight line? Australia, at a guess. What’s 50,000 miles away from here in a straight line? Er well, we are. We are both 0 miles away and 50,000 miles away. Neat 🙂

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Full Member

    The thing with the universe is,

    there are things we don’t 100% know, or understand. Perhaps we never will. But the dangerous failing here is to assume that if we can’t explain it, or even comprehend it, that it must be incorrect. If you don’t accept that (and it’s a very human reaction) then we segue very quickly into convenient but insubstantial explanations like “god did it.”

    When you start bandying about concepts like infinity, or what’s outside a finite universe, or what was here before the big bang, you start to raise more sticky questions than you had when you started. Just because it makes our heads hurt doesn’t necessarily mean these theories are wrong.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Free Member

    Plus, it’s a bit silly to try and figure this stuff out in common sense terms, since common sense only applies to the every day world. You need to start thinking in mathematical terms, which isn’t easy if you don’t know the maths well enough. That’s why physicists talk in terms of equations rather than noodling on about analogies and whatnot.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Full Member

    Our life is carbon based, because carbon readily forms covalent bonds which can create long and very complex molecules. These molecules can incorporate the complexity required to create stuff like DNA and proteins. Other elements are not at all suitable for this.

    As an aside,

    Science fiction tells us that silicon-based life forms might be possible on extra-terrestrial worlds. Does this actually hold up in any sort of theoretical fashion, or is it all, er, science fiction?

    Premier Icon Kryton57
    Full Member

    there are things we don’t 100% know, or understand. Perhaps we never will. But the dangerous failing here is to assume that if we can’t explain it, or even comprehend it, that it must be incorrect or doesn’t exist

    This is where I was going with it – I added the underlined words to complete my theory.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Free Member

    Cougar, silicon can form these complex compounds but not as readily, so whilst possible to have silicon based life forms it’s not that likely – especially given that carbon is so abundant, it’d be unusual to have a load of reactive silicon floating around and no carbon.

    Kryton – are you alluding to the possible existance of things we cannot conceive?

    That is of course possible, but there are a few things in our favour here when reasoning.

    1) The whole universe seems to be made out of the same basic stuff, and the same laws apply.

    2) This stuff would therefore be arranged in the same fairly limited combinations that we know as the periodic table wherever it ended up. So the periodic table on the planet Tharg would be the same as ours.

    3) Given the same set of elements with the same properties, chemistry would be the same anywhere in the universe.

    4) Therefore the basic compounds we know about would also exist on other planets just the same, and have the same implications.

    5) So a lot of what we know about the mechanics of life and things still applies.

    Premier Icon Junkyard
    Free Member

    The thing with the universe is,

    there are things we don’t 100% know, or understand. Perhaps we never will.
    There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
    There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don’t know.
    But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.

    FTFY

    Nice post molly its ace knowing we are all literally stardust probably appeals to Yunki as well 😉

Viewing 40 posts - 281 through 320 (of 366 total)

The topic ‘Moon Landing Hoax? Channel 5 now!’ is closed to new replies.