What is your estimate?

[Tyguy]

I know enough about evolution and astronomy to know that the chance of other life in the universe IS good. Any respected astronomer would tell you the same. The only reason to think there may not be other life out there is pure religious dogma.

 

[Dan]

I know enough about evolution and astronomy to know that the chance of other life in the universe IS good. Any respected astronomer would tell you the same. The only reason to think there may not be other life out there is pure religious dogma.

Funny I have never heard that. Tell me exactly what it is that you know.

 

[Shift]

The Universe is somewhere in the vacinty of around 35 billion lightyears in size, and that number increases all the time, and you are saying, that its unlikely that there is no other life out there? I find that almost impossible to consider.

 

[Tyguy]

its actually around 156 billion light years. The outer most parts of the universe are expanding faster the further they get.

 

[Dan]

The Universe is somewhere in the vacinty of around 35 billion lightyears in size, and that number increases all the time, and you are saying, that its unlikely that there is no other life out there? I find that almost impossible to consider.

I never said that it was unlikely, just uncertain.

As I pointed out before, and you apparently ignored, and TY doesn't understand, large size is meaningless for the overall chances of life when it isn't related to the probability of life per system. I tried to use the example of the large number of atomic collisions vs the probability of fusion at room temperature. A very small probability can outweigh a very large number of trials. And as I also said, we really know nothing about the probability of life spontaneously occurring because we only have one known instance of life spontaneously occurring, ourselves, and that data point is intrinsically linked to our own existence, so it isn't really usable for statistics.

 

[Shift]

its actually around 156 billion light years. The outer most parts of the universe are expanding faster the further they get.

Both wrong lol

being at least 93 billion light years across

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

And you have a point Dan, but still, I can bet my left nut that if Earth can evolve into what it is today, and cosidering that there is bound to be MANYYYY other planets like or similiar to ours (in fact I read somewhere that they discovered one and are almost certain that it was like Earth), that there is bound to be other inteligent life out there.

 

[Tyguy]

Both wrong lol

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

 

[Cheomesh]

Anyways, it's not whether there is or is not life out there. We don't know and while there is an awesome chance there is, there is also a chance that there isn't.


What I've been thinking about lately is long-term colonization of Mars. I had a (simi cool) idea on how to do it, that I will not present here, but what I wonder is if there is something we overlook that's going to ruin our plans.

I mean we talk about atmosphere, and we can easily overcome that, and we talk about gravity, and we have ways of helping compensate for that, but what about magnetic fields?

Now I'm not one of those wackos who thinks magnets can cure desieses and stuff, but with Mars having a really weak magnetic field, who's to say that a long term alienation from our own strong one will not cause issues? I'm thinking we'll be fine, but I don't know.

 

[Shift]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

WIKI KNOWS ALL DAMMIT!

 

[Dan]

Both wrong lol
And you have a point Dan, but still, I can bet my left nut that if Earth can evolve into what it is today, and cosidering that there is bound to be MANYYYY other planets like or similiar to ours (in fact I read somewhere that they discovered one and are almost certain that it was like Earth), that there is bound to be other inteligent life out there.

But the Earth isn't an objective reference to use, because life on Earth must exist for us to exist and study the possibility of life. There is no probability for life not to occur on Earth, or another way to think of it is that it is a certainty that we have to assume to even begin asking this question. The existence of life on earth is defined to be true by our existence, so it renders the statistical probability of life on earth moot.

 

[Dan]

What I've been thinking about lately is long-term colonization of Mars. I had a (simi cool) idea on how to do it, that I will not present here, but what I wonder is if there is something we overlook that's going to ruin our plans.

I mean we talk about atmosphere, and we can easily overcome that, and we talk about gravity, and we have ways of helping compensate for that, but what about magnetic fields?

Now I'm not one of those wackos who thinks magnets can cure desieses and stuff, but with Mars having a really weak magnetic field, who's to say that a long term alienation from our own strong one will not cause issues? I'm thinking we'll be fine, but I don't know.

A magnetic field is many orders of magnitude easier to create than a planetary atmosphere or gravitational field.

 

[jverne]

Space elevators. Spaceborne production facilities. These things are needed before we can really go anywhere. Strapping small, fragile objects to giant explosive poles and hoping that they won't explode while wasting vast amounts of energy is stupid and unsustainable.

couldn't agree more!

 

[99.vikram]

Solar sails FTW. And I don't think we'll be leaving the solar system before we discover a MUCH more efficient engine and power source.

 

[Cheomesh]

Besides, with our current tech we can colonize stuff, it's just that we don't believe so.

I think it's a matter of method over knowhow.

 

[Parrot of doom]

The thing about the theory of relativity is that it is a theory - based upon observation of facts.

Just because we haven't observed objects with mass exceeding the speed of light doesn't mean to say it isn't possible.

As for extra-terrestrial life, I see no reason why life couldn't develop in any number of environments, including the 4 gas giants in our solar system.

 

[Dan]

The thing about the theory of relativity is that it is a theory - based upon observation of facts.

Just because we haven't observed objects with mass exceeding the speed of light doesn't mean to say it isn't possible.

As for extra-terrestrial life, I see no reason why life couldn't develop in any number of environments, including the 4 gas giants in our solar system.

I think your understanding of the word theory is flawed, it's not just some random guess.

 

[Kadayi]

Besides, with our current tech we can colonize stuff, it's just that we don't believe so.

Technology is only a third of the equation. The other two thirds are unlimited capital investment & unlimited resources. Personally we need to sort out our own backyard before we'll ever be in a position to seriously focus on the matter.

But the Earth isn't an objective reference to use, because life on Earth must exist for us to exist and study the possibility of life. There is no probability for life not to occur on Earth, or another way to think of it is that it is a certainty that we have to assume to even begin asking this question. The existence of life on earth is defined to be true by our existence, so it renders the statistical probability of life on earth moot.

What utter pseudo babble. Life has come to exist on Earth as a resultant of certain chemical & environmental conditions over time. As a litmus test for environments likely to yield traces of life (whether simply bacterial or more complex), Exo-planets with similar chemical compositions & environmental situations are a good starting point to look at. Sure the chances of life developing on them are reliant on small events occurring to kick start the process, but when you've got billions of years in which to roll the dice repeatedly for those small events to occur, the odds improve considerably.

 

[Smoke]

This may interest you guys.

http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

 

[Dan]

Technology is only a third of the equation. The other two thirds are unlimited capital investment & unlimited resources. Personally we need to sort out our own backyard before we'll ever be in a position to seriously focus on the matter.



What utter pseudo babble. Life has come to exist on Earth as a resultant of certain chemical & environmental conditions over time. As a litmus test for environments likely to yield traces of life (whether simply bacterial or more complex), Exo-planets with similar chemical compositions & environmental situations are a good starting point to look at. Sure the chances of life developing on them are reliant on small events occurring to kick start the process, but when you've got billions of years in which to roll the dice repeatedly for those small events to occur, the odds improve considerably.

You are talking about qualities necessary for life, I was talking about probabilities. The earth isn't a good statistical data point to use because of the reasons I gave. (Otherwise back when we only knew of one planet, and that planet has life (us), one might surmise that therefore all planets hold life).

 

[ericms]

But the Earth isn't an objective reference to use, because life on Earth must exist for us to exist and study the possibility of life. There is no probability for life not to occur on Earth, or another way to think of it is that it is a certainty that we have to assume to even begin asking this question. The existence of life on earth is defined to be true by our existence, so it renders the statistical probability of life on earth moot.

I'm near clueless about the subject at hand, but it also seems to me that JUST having a large quantity of planets and galaxies tells nothing about there being a greater chance of life outside our own. I mean, first of all, it would seem that "large" would be near meaningless given the subjectivity of size. Though, let's say we make some discovery that extends the quantity of galaxies we know of. What about the probability from the point of view of there NOT being life within it (which, from all the examples in our own galaxy and judging as you are with the probability that there is, would lead one away from an increase in the chance of life)? Again though, this is said only with the concern of quantity.

 

[Dan]

I'm near clueless about the subject at hand, but it also seems to me that JUST having a large quantity of planets and galaxies tells nothing about there being a greater chance of life outside our own. I mean, first of all, it would seem that "large" would be near meaningless given the subjectivity of size. Though, let's say we make some discovery that extends the quantity of galaxies we know of. What about the probability from the point of view of there NOT being life within it (which, from all the examples in our own galaxy and judging as you are with the probability that there is, would lead one away from an increase in the chance of life)? Again though, this is said only with the concern of quantity.

That's exactly what I pointed out like 3 different times now

 

[ericms]

That's exactly what I pointed out like 3 different times now

Yes, I know. I was agreeing with you.

It just didn't look like anyone else was..

 

[Tyguy]

I'm near clueless about the subject at hand, but it also seems to me that JUST having a large quantity of planets and galaxies tells nothing about there being a greater chance of life outside our own. I mean, first of all, it would seem that large" would be near meaningless given the subjectivity of size.

If celestial bodies have the same composition and distance of the earth, why are they any less likely to contain life? The earth isn't special. Every day new planets are being discovered that hold similar properties to that of the earth. We have been able to see zero of them close enough to dismiss a possibility of life.

The chance of life sprouting up everywhere in ideal conditions is minimal, but when understanding the amount of stars and planets in our own galaxy, the odds rise considerably.

 

[Cheomesh]

Even if we find a planet with sentient life, who's to say we'll realize it?

You all know this is a topic so ridiculously far above our heads, right? It's all speculation. There are no precedences.

 

[Dan]

If celestial bodies have the same composition and distance of the earth, why are they any less likely to contain life? The earth isn't special. Every day new planets are being discovered that hold similar properties to that of the earth. We have been able to see zero of them close enough to dismiss a possibility of life.

The chance of life sprouting up everywhere in ideal conditions is minimal, but when understanding the amount of stars and planets in our own galaxy, the odds rise considerably.

That was my whole point about using the earth as a reference for probabilities. You can't say what the likelihood of life existing on Earth is because we can never see it any other way.

 

[VirusType2]

Well, humans that could write haven't been around very long at all. We have come so far, so fast, it's scary.

I think it's ridiculous to think that just because we live in the current time, that the world won't advance much further.

Provided some global catastrophe doesn't take place that wipes off most of human civilization, then I think you we should be realistic.

Realize that the Sun will continue to burn for like another couple billion years or more, and if humans are still around, just think how advanced mankind could be.

I mean, written civilization is only a few thousand years old. We are making huge advances in technology every year.

Imagine technology in 30 years.

50 years.


In 100 years people will be learning about this year in history class, as well read about 100 year old history and think about how primitive technology was. They will be laughing in school about how we thought we were so advanced, yet we all drove around in dead dinosaur powered vehicles.

Now imagine 250 years from now

500 years.

1000 years.

The bible has been around for over 2000 years, and yet they probably thought they had mastered their world.

Now imagine 10,0000 years from now.. it's difficult really.

So, therefore it's difficult to determine if we will have the technology to space travel.

Imagine 200,000 years from now or more and it's really intimidating. Think how privative our technology probably is. . It's like the equivalent of using sticks and stones to people who will live 200,000 years from now.


It's really crazy if you try to imagine mankind who might live a billion, or even just a million years from now.


I say we can certainly inhabit space, and probably travel throughout the galaxy.

 

[Saturos]

Personally, in order for us to achive technological greatness, and to obtain the potential to explore the outer limits, man-kind must first set aside it's own selfish desires. The need to make "fast money" has significantly stimed scientific developement imo. Man-kind would probably undergo another renaissance period focusing on science and technology rather than art and literature when that era finally comes. An inspiration to shake things up if you will. Until then, I believe we have hit a technological wall as far as space exploration technology goes. Not because of our knowledge and understanding of scientific theories and laws as well as resources, but because of the lack of proper character needed for cooperation and teamwork. Much like how it was the transition from the medival to the modern age during the 16th and 17th centuries, it will be the transition from the current information age to the space age. An age where curiosity overcomes convenience,desirability, and selfishness. To answer your question, no. We will not see such developments in our lifetimes. There are simply too many selfish desires among human civilization as of today to work together for a higher purpose. We cannot settle our own differences long enough to achieve the teamwork, dedication, and discipline needed for such a great undertaking to occur within our generation's lifespan. The only other way human civilization could improve sooner to achieve the teamwork and discipline needed for advanced space exploration, is if a great global calamity struck and our survival depended on the improvement of human character. Much like the story behind the Half-Life series in fact.

 

[Llama]

This race will need to grow up a lot before we can advance any more.

In less than a thousand years it's not hard to imagine there will be weapons developed that could have the potential to wipe out our entire species, that could be developed by anyone. Humanity is going to need to mature before it can handle that sort of power.

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/75971/Talking_to_God_

Please don't jump on it having anything to do with god (It's an article, not something to be taken seriously anyway), it's an interesting article and It's a pretty cool way of thinking.

 

[Saturos]

This race will need to grow up a lot before we can advance any more.

Did you like my long and well though out thesis?

 

[Narvi]

Not trying to start a fight but I really think that's unlikely. I'm no super genious, but even ONE change in the billions of variables at the creation of life on our planet would be a prism for making a totally different world. Hell, for all I know, Panspermia has created another, or many, worlds like our own.

Not really. It'd still be limited by basic physical laws. Materials science dismissed the possibility of Godzilla years ago, for instance. Also, life is interesting in that it is not spontaneous. It's like how rotating flying starfish are extremely unlikely, simply because of how inefficient such a construct would be.

What I've been thinking about lately is long-term colonization of Mars. I had a (simi cool) idea on how to do it, that I will not present here, but what I wonder is if there is something we overlook that's going to ruin our plans.

I mean we talk about atmosphere, and we can easily overcome that, and we talk about gravity, and we have ways of helping compensate for that, but what about magnetic fields?

Now I'm not one of those wackos who thinks magnets can cure desieses and stuff, but with Mars having a really weak magnetic field, who's to say that a long term alienation from our own strong one will not cause issues? I'm thinking we'll be fine, but I don't know.

Magnetic fields? :| Magnetic fields don't do any work in our body at all. The gravity is a much more worrisome proposition. Besides, the earth's magnetic field has switched several times, with little or no effect on life.

 

[Cheomesh]

Nah I was just wondering if a weaker one would have any effect at all. Like I said, probably not.

 

[Kadayi]

You are talking about qualities necessary for life, I was talking about probabilities. The earth isn't a good statistical data point to use because of the reasons I gave. (Otherwise back when we only knew of one planet, and that planet has life (us), one might surmise that therefore all planets hold life).

No what you are, is talking out of your arse Dan, and your above argument is moronic in the extreme.

Probability is a universal law as much as the laws of physics or chemistry, not something particular to, or a bi-product of our existence or likely to be an aberration inherent only to our solar system alone. Gravity existed before Issac Newton coined the phrase, and the periodic table elements existed way before we categorized them. The probability of an event happening is a constant timeless force (the dice are always rolling, they never stop). The more positive/proven variables you throw into the mix the more likely you are to yield the same results eventually. The Earth was around for a good few years before those dice came up sixes and life evolved out of the chemical soup, it didn't occur from the offset. it's a proven yardstick, that over time the mix was conducive to biological life developing. Given an infinite amount of time, biological life in a form that we recognize as such, is as likely to develop on a planet similar to earth in terms of environment & chemical composition. Your argument seems to be, hey 'just because we made a cake with these ingredients doesn't mean Joe over there in Alpha Centuri will manage the same with exactly the same ingredients'. Sure Joe might not, but given he's got 15 Billion years in which to try (with those dice rolling constantly), you end up having to look at it in the reverse of what are the odds of Joe not making a cake like ours. Life developed on Earth as the resultant of simple chemical reactions, that evolved into more complex forms, that kept going. The great thing is, is that because it was the first form of life there wasn't anything out there to stop it from developing further, once it got a foothold. :dozey:

 

[Dan]

No what you are, is talking out of your arse Dan, and your above argument is moronic in the extreme.

Probability is a universal law as much as the laws of physics or chemistry, not something particular to, or a bi-product of our existence or likely to be an aberration inherent only to our solar system alone. Gravity existed before Issac Newton coined the phrase, and the periodic table elements existed way before we categorized them. The probability of an event happening is a constant timeless force (the dice are always rolling, they never stop). The more positive/proven variables you throw into the mix the more likely you are to yield the same results eventually. The Earth was around for a good few years before those dice
came up sixes and life evolved out of the chemical soup, it didn't occur from the offset. it's a proven yardstick, that over time the mix was conducive to biological life developing. Given an infinite amount of time, biological life in a form that we recognize as such, is as likely to develop on a planet similar to earth in terms of environment & chemical composition. Your argument seems to be, hey 'just because we made a cake with these ingredients doesn't mean Joe over there in Alpha Centuri will manage the same with exactly the same ingredients'. Sure Joe might not, but given he's got 15 Billion years in which to try (with those dice rolling constantly), you end up having to look at it in the reverse of what are the odds of Joe not making a cake like ours. Life developed on Earth as the resultant of simple chemical reactions, that evolved into more complex forms, that kept going. The great thing is, is that because it was the first form of life there wasn't anything out there to stop it from developing further, once it got a foothold. :dozey:

If you are going to use an objective all knowing reference then there are no probabilities at all, everything is predetermined, but obviously you don't know everything. God doesn't roll dice.

Maybe learn some statistics and come back with an actual argument instead of being insulting and I will have something more reasonable to say to you. Otherwise, don't respond if you don't understand, or ask politely.

 

[Kadayi]

If you are going to use an objective all knowing reference then there are no probabilities at all, everything is predetermined, but obviously you don't know everything. God doesn't roll dice.

Life on earth isn't an all knowing reference, but it's a good yardstick with which to work from if you can critically assess and determine what made it so in terms of the formula (not the whole). Science has done that. So forget all the esoteric waffle of absolutes, predetermination and God (going for a religious angle? clutching at straws surely). Events follow as a consequence of events and under the right conditions certain events are favorable, throw in unlimited time and the chances of events not occurring diminish rapidly. You stand down a corridor, and with a blindfold on I fire a rifle at you repeatedly for thousand years, inevitably I'm going to hit you above the left eyebrow quite a few times. You make a big enough chemical soup & subject it to constant environmental changes in terms of temperature over the course of billions of years, the odds of nothing happening in it are almost zero.

Maybe learn some statistics and come back with an actual argument instead of being insulting and I will have something more reasonable to say to you. Otherwise, don't respond if you don't understand, or ask politely.

You haven't said anything with any 'reason' underlying it so far so I'm not expecting you come up with anything reasonable after. The only insult around here is that you'd think the pseudo logic bullshit you spouted had some truth to it.

 

[Dan]

Life on earth isn't an all knowing reference, but it's a good yardstick with which to work from if you can critically assess and determine what made it so in terms of the formula (not the whole). Science has done that. So forget all the esoteric waffle of absolutes, predetermination and God (going for a religious angle? clutching at straws surely). Events follow as a consequence of events and under the right conditions certain events are favorable, throw in unlimited time and the chances of events not occurring diminish rapidly. You stand down a corridor, and with a blindfold on I fire a rifle at you repeatedly for thousand years, inevitably I'm going to hit you above the left eyebrow quite a few times. You make a big enough chemical soup & subject it to constant environmental changes in terms of temperature over the course of billions of years, the odds of nothing happening in it are almost zero.

You haven't said anything with any 'reason' underlying it so far so I'm not expecting you come up with anything reasonable after. The only insult around here is that you'd think the pseudo logic bullshit you spouted had some truth to it.

The God reference was a quote of Einstein. Your understanding of the topic is so skewed and you are so hate-filled that it's not even worth it to try to teach you physics, science or statistics. Just believe that you are right and have a merry Christmas.

 

[Kadayi]

The God reference was a quote of Einstein. Your understanding of the topic is so skewed and you are so hate-filled that it's not even worth it to try to teach you physics, science or statistics. Just believe that you are right and have a merry Christmas.

It's not hate Dan, it's more contempt. Given what you've spouted previously, the notion of you teaching anything is a deeply frightening prospect. Life is cake mix, a deeply complex cake mix, but cake mix nevertheless. As for Einstein, certainly a genius, but not everything he uttered was manna from heaven & that particular quotation certainly wasn't. Einstein was comfortable with the the notion of a determinism (it suited his mindset), but it doesn't hold up with todays science.

 

[Cheomesh]

I think what's important is that we work into settling our own solar system for now.