RE: Life out there?

RE: Life out there? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Life out there? (7/2/2012 10:23:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini Rich, can we have these type of discussions any more? It seems like we can't discuss the possibility of life on another planet without PROOF. Everything must be "proven", or many would have you believe that you can't have a thought, opinion, or belief without "PROOF". That's the beauty of a topic like this, Mari. No matter what position you take, it all comes down to faith based exchange of ideas. The proof that some might demand? That requires supreme faith, that all we know today, is all that will ever be known.

Marini -> RE: Life out there? (7/2/2012 10:31:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Marini Rich, can we have these type of discussions any more? It seems like we can't discuss the possibility of life on another planet without PROOF. Everything must be "proven", or many would have you believe that you can't have a thought, opinion, or belief without "PROOF". That's the beauty of a topic like this, Mari. No matter what position you take, it all comes down to faith based exchange of ideas. The proof that some might demand? That requires supreme faith, that all we know today, is all that will ever be known. That is how you and I, and some feel. Many still demand links, and PROOF. As has been stated ad nauseum, we are in the beginning phases and there is a lot we can not know, and certainly will not know for hundreds of years. Until then, you and I am many others can continue thinking freely. [sm=abducted.gif] There is another dimension, of time and space, worlds, galaxies, and I will always find this utterly fascinating.

littlewonder -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 12:44:43 AM)
I'm just asking for cites for validation of the stories on the site. Otherwise I may as well read The Guardian.

BenevolentM -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 2:44:38 AM)
On this point I could go either way.

mnottertail -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 5:23:13 AM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation (Note that this is just within our galaxy this does not include the entire universe). There is some pretty good assumptions went into this and of course they could be totally wrong..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nz5pkb9ksw&feature=fvst this is actually pretty educational.

Rule -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 8:10:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I wonder in all these alien civilizations, do the guys want blowjobs, ya think? That depends on their degree of cognition. Species that are close to the status of short lived food animals - as humans are - will be instinctively pre-occupied with reproductive activities and substitutes (like blowjobs) thereof. Cognitively advanced species on the other hand are unlikey to waste time with daily and day-long copulatory activities.

mnottertail -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 8:12:02 AM)
I expect those civilizations to die out rather quickly then. No reason to get up in the morning.

Rule -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 8:19:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail No reason to get up in the morning. Sure there is: hunger.

mnottertail -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 8:38:51 AM)
Nah, breakfast in bed.

OttersSwim -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 8:52:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nah, breakfast in bed. Who's gonna bring it to you? Answer: The robot that eventually will kill you. The End. Meanwhile back on Earth, Republicans outlaw sex and all sexual activities as well as fun, and scientists announce a new robot that will bring you breakfast in bed! [;)]

vincentML -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 9:17:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation (Note that this is just within our galaxy this does not include the entire universe). There is some pretty good assumptions went into this and of course they could be totally wrong..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nz5pkb9ksw&feature=fvst this is actually pretty educational. The MP ditty was cute, Ron. thanks [:)] The Drake equation on the other hand . . . not so good: Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Thus the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind. As Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated in a 2003 lecture at Caltech:[34] The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless... Another objection is that the very form of the Drake equation assumes that civilizations arise and then die out within their original solar systems. If interstellar colonization is possible, then this assumption is invalid, and the equations of population dynamics would apply instead.[35] One reply to such criticisms[36] is that even though the Drake equation currently involves speculation about unmeasured parameters, it was not meant to be science, but intended as a way to stimulate dialogue on these topics. Then the focus becomes how to proceed experimentally. Indeed, Drake originally formulated the equation merely as an agenda for discussion at the Green Bank conference.[37] source here

mnottertail -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 9:19:49 AM)
Exactly, its a guesstimate, but shows you the size of the guesstimate, the guesstimate numbers could be in the trillionsXtrillionsXtrillions....ad infinitum. So just like an atom, its mostly empty space, but there is a lot of it, filled with stuff.......

vincentML -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 9:38:12 AM)
~FR~ Follow up on the discussion had yesterday on the expanding Universe and some stuff I learned from reading wiki along the way and a different reason why the night sky may be dark . . . There is a Visible Universe . . . radiation we can actually collect there is an Observable Universe (observable in theory) . . . .bigger than the VU because in the first 370 K years of the Bang all matter and energy were in highly charged plasma state opaque to photons. The photons could not escape. The residual of this plasma state has been recorded as microwave background noise. This noise acts as a barrier beyond which we cannot see. So, i have to retract my comments of yesterday that the furthest galaxies might be leaking photons into the void. The void is beyond our vision behind the microwave wall. The 'pregnant' topography in the Monthy Python sketch prompts me to report this information: The Universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The light we receive from the furthest (oldest) galaxies is 45.7 billion lightyears. The visible universe has expanded an enormous amount. Hold sh*t!!! Interstingly, I read elsewhere (can't recall) the microwave radiation from the observable universe is the static we see on a television station when it signs off the air. Well, we used to see. I am dating myself here. [:D]

vincentML -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 9:39:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Exactly, its a guesstimate, but shows you the size of the guesstimate, the guesstimate numbers could be in the trillionsXtrillionsXtrillions....ad infinitum. So just like an atom, its mostly empty space, but there is a lot of it, filled with stuff....... Or it could be zero. [:)]

mnottertail -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 9:51:25 AM)
Yep, zero is an answer, and as likely as having a room full of 364 people and nobody sharing a birthday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

jlf1961 -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 10:04:04 AM)
In May of 2008, the Catholic Church came out with a statement that admitted to the possibility of Extraterrestrials. Speaking as a Catholic, and considering the dogma of the church, this is a pretty big admission.

vincentML -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 10:27:06 AM)
quote: Yep, zero is an answer, and as likely as having a room full of 364 people and nobody sharing a birthday. [:D] Copernicus and Galileo stood on the shoulders of ancient Greek philosophers and their observations. Sturdier than 364 coincidental people in a room with no observations at all. Eratostanese estimated earth's circumference around 240 BC. Let me know when one of your 364 people has something to contribute other than statistical speculation, and I will happily listen. Vincent

mnottertail -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 10:43:11 AM)
statistical speculation is the heart of dirac, bohr, heisenberg, pauli exclusion principle, and the way the universe is, all of these (including newton et al, stood also on the shoulders of giants). Your attendance and hearing of this matter is unnessecary for the same reasons. Galileo had a pretty good estimate for his time, and for the girls we go out with it works, except for massive objects and high speeds. There are at least 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe by guys who went to pretty good schools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way and in our galaxy alone at least 400 billion planets in habitable zone. This is not random, it is statistics that are solid. Same as are solid in Texas Hold 'Em. Surprises? Yep, but surprises wont overcome the numbers in a 100 billion * 400 billion to 1 game. Now, that would be a surprise

vincentML -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 2:08:40 PM)
quote: statistical speculation is the heart of dirac, bohr, heisenberg, pauli exclusion principle, and the way the universe is, all of these (including newton et al, stood also on the shoulders of giants). All of the above set out to solve observed problems in the development of QM. Their solutions led them into mathematical probabilities. They did not begin with probability in search of a problem. Where's the problem? Just because there is one planet with life on it and billions x billions of other objects in the Universe it does not follow that there must be at least one more where life has found suitable nourishment. A single event does not by its ocurrence of necessity predict similar future events. If I throw a deck of 52 playing cards in the air and only one lands standing on edge while the others land flat, there is nothing inherent in the singular event that predicts the recurrence no matter how many times and how many decks I throw into the air. You are applying statistics and probability to a false premise.

mnottertail -> RE: Life out there? (7/3/2012 2:13:35 PM)
no, there actually were no problems, they saw something and then figured out what would take to work it out and make it right, since the previous explanations didnt cut it. the problem would be (if you must): are we alone, or is civilization an abberation in the universe? but then of course, why?

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625