| Welcome to Round Table Knights Clan. Enjoy your visit! |
| They're Coming; UN Appoints Abassador to Greet Aliens | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 28 2010, 06:59 AM (1,205 Views) | |
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 15 2010, 05:07 PM Post #36 |
|
Master of Spam
|
English spelling is absurd, it should be revised and made phonetic. |
![]() |
|
| Kronos | Oct 15 2010, 08:15 PM Post #37 |
|
Typo, I'm not exactly writing a thesis for a Ph.D. in English Language here otherwise I would think while typing instead of mashing keys together. |
![]() |
|
| Mercurius of Cappadocia | Oct 16 2010, 03:47 AM Post #38 |
|
King of the Round Table Knights
|
What makes you think that's a "fact"?
On the other hand, if all these sightings are real, they must be wondering ###### they'd have to do.... Well, it's all an argument out of ignorance, without empirical evidence available. Videos can be doctored, people can lie, people can delude themselves.... However, you know with Wormholes, warp, tachyon fields, our current understanding of the universe has some possible avenues for travel faster than light..... It only takes one way...
"remotely credible UFO claim" means what to you? You want to hold that ###### in your hand? :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Mercurius of Cappadocia | Oct 16 2010, 04:12 AM Post #39 |
|
King of the Round Table Knights
|
Damn them.... But if they had pocketed a roll, it wouldn't move you anyway....
and you couldn't estimate the size of an object in a sky either....
So they say....
Too bad they didn't prove that explanation using the evidence they confiscated.... they did take the film. That is on record. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 16 2010, 10:08 AM Post #40 |
|
Master of Spam
|
That's right, I'd like to see full video+audio in HD, or they should land in my back yard. --- A report of somebody seeing shiny things of unknown size and speed at unknown range is not exactly an alien spacecraft sighting. There need not even be any objects. You saw parts of Mir or the shuttle break up, well that looked like objects flying in formation, and so would a cloud of space debris the Earth passed through. Or seed pods caught in the same blast of wind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLBaIf3ofTs Here, random flying seed video
In the middle of the cold war? :lol: Still, the alien theory leaves more unanswered questions than seemingly lame government explanations. ---- BTW, fiction also toys with the idea of "aliens" having been present on Earth for a long time. The latest Battleship Galactia series even has modern man descend from aliens, so does the video game Assassin's Creed. Crysis put aliens on Earth that would be dormant for millennia before awakened by humans, to be then shot and pummeled to a bluish green gooey sploding death by me. That's pure fiction, but then there are sensational but scientific theories about visiting aliens (to answer Kronos) who'd encounter primitive human civilisations, which is based on the "god" image of ancient cultures and "leaps" in technology. The notorious Erich von Däniken wrote over a dozen of books on the topic I'm just saying that though there is no proof per say, we are creative enough thinkers to find facts supporting theories of alien encounters in history. For example, it could be a simple explanation to how independent cultures came to believe there were gods living in the skies or why they created huge images on the ground. I've even seen passages of the Bible interpreted as a prophet encountering high-tech beings - and describing it in the contemporary language.
|
![]() |
|
| Mercurius of Cappadocia | Oct 24 2010, 07:10 AM Post #41 |
|
King of the Round Table Knights
|
They could've released that stuff by now, I'd imagine.... You know if they had, we'd be looking at those clips right now.... |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Dec 2 2010, 10:48 AM Post #42 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Little green men revealed today???
|
![]() |
|
| Kronos | Dec 2 2010, 01:54 PM Post #43 |
|
By the looks of it, it'll be something along the lines of either evidence for the existence of extra terrestrial microbes, or evidence that there once was extra terrestrial microbes at some point in time. Well, hopefully atleast and not something lame. |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Dec 2 2010, 03:47 PM Post #44 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
WHY? A: Although our science is formed around a mathematics evolved under the influence of some severely limited senses and brains, we must largely accept it as operable..it still has nothing but completely unsupported theory to suggest that useful matter can be moved at more than a fraction of light speed, that 'aliens' then perform wanton perusal of foreign planets in manned vehicles is not then a thoroughly reasonable conclusion to come to. B: what evidence we have suggests that all life on earth came from a single source, implying that even on this planet where conditions are apparently good for the creation and maintenance of the protean, it only happened once in quite a long span of time. C: Applying the Doppler effect to distant galaxies is bs, and even if it weren't the conclusions drawn are bs. D: The only functional tenet of evolutionary theory is that 'life' deliberately attempts to preserve itself, implying that at some point in the pre-dna evolution of life 'inanimate' matter somehow developed an appreciation of time, it's own existence, it's own 'mortality' and made successful attempts to offset said degradations of time. Either that or Dag Mk-1 made you bitches then flew off into the sunset. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Dec 2 2010, 08:15 PM Post #45 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Eh? "Pre-dna", it may well have been accidental altogether, without any sort of "appreciation" or deliberate attempts for self-preservation. The NASA discovery is just another form of life on Earth, and we already "knew" life need not depend on exactly what we can live with. |
![]() |
|
| Mercurius of Cappadocia | Dec 3 2010, 05:32 AM Post #46 |
|
King of the Round Table Knights
|
It's certainly not insignificant that we've discovered a life form that utilizes arsenic in its makeup.... an additional ingredient useable to form life.
Single source? And not happening repeatedly in various ways at various times? I don't know about that... I'd say life is a weed. Try and stop it. But even that will do.... --Several hundred billion galaxies full of stars that are full of planets --13.75 billion years of age. Once our particular, ill equipped form of intelligence succeeded on our planet, it's taken a blip to figure out we are far from the center of the universe. I'm comfortable the probabilities, despite the obvious uncertainties. |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Dec 9 2010, 07:21 PM Post #47 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Single source? And not happening repeatedly in various ways at various times? Ofcourse, if we claim that the original formation of life on earth was an accident, then life, if only by way of dna would take many different forms, as only one form has ever been found, including the arsenic user, then it's only reasonable to assume there was one origin for dna. Either that or this one particular form of life & dna is such a natural pattern for atoms to fall into that we'll find life on 90% of stable stellar captured planetoids, and if that is the case then technology using life elsewhere is an absolute certainty. Using arsenic isn't anything astounding, at all, the idea that something is innately toxic to life is harry potter science. That life looks at elements and decides beforehand whether it's useful or not is another absurd anthropomorphisisisisisisisation, arsenic shares properties with phosPho'R'Us, so it's reasonable to assume at some point it would be engineered into usefulness but there's the rub, dna evolved to use arsenic, not out of it. Biologous formations don't care if a particular compound has been labelled poisonous, if that compound has properties that can be used usefully, to Life there is no such thing as a periodic table. .....You've seen as much evidence to support the theory that the universe is a certain age as I have that god has 31 purple hairs on his ass, and the amount of stars and planets is irrelevant to almost any theory of extra-terrestrial evolution. Logically [within them] there is no necessity for life elsewhere to be benefited by similar surroundings to that on earth, if we claim that evolution to be 'accidental.' However, whilst the elements are interchangable and their usefulness is property-based, it doesn't follow that life has evolved elsewhere unless you think the genesis of dna is easy. And/or life without dna is possible. Personally I think extra-terrestrial life occuring by accident is only possible if the latter is true, given that the genesis of dna by accident is impossible. yay, impossible.
But, y'see, the arguments pro-ET almost all end up relying on an arbitrary likelihood of exogenesis, when the only conclusion you can come to if you insist dna is an accident is that the universe is [/has been] flooded with intelligent life. Which it apparently isn't. If life evolved by accident using conventional physics, the age of the universe would suggest that 'weed'-like life should be the norm, not the exception. There is no rule that says life cannot evolve within a star, without appreciable gravity, that it's individual expressions live more than a fraction of a 'second,' that tool manipulation need be by pod, that it's senses need be so intent on providing innacurate data.
For a start it's not a blip, it's only a blip if you assume success at the end, that we have survived thus far has no bearing on the chances for success of another species. But during that blip almost every individual that made a genuine thought-step perished without that 'advance' entering the sociotype/zeitgeist in a useful form. During that blip many specie & subspecies have come and gone, much false data has been recorded as truth, many false or useless conclusions have been made & maintained. No other species of the many we have here, to the best of my knowledge has created a second generation tool. During that blip many millions of gardeners have found it easy to eradicate weeds from their gardens. It's the kind of blip that convinces students not to start reading until the day before their submission is due. And besides, you are the centre of the universe, I can show you a million stars, you can't show me a single other instance of life that can deliberately apply arbitrary acts to it's environment, consciously choose a mate that will not beget young, foster the young of another species for absolutely no good reason. that is a member of a species that can aspire to the creation of new stars. etc
So you think pplz believe not only that dna fell into place by accident, but that it's method of self-replication is not only accidental but unnecessary and that it is likely to [have] occur[red] elsewhere in the same/recognisable form and survived to develop technological parity with homo retentus? Life needs to want to live, to live. It's a beautiful accident that your desire to eat promotes your chances of eating useful matter which in turn promotes the chances of your constituent parts surviving. And yet genetically inherited eating disorders survive fast, feast & famine in every corner of the world, funny that. If ppl can accept that there are mechanisms that guide/determine the large-scale behaviour patterns of organisms, why is it then required for the genesis/behaviour of dna molecules to be physick-chance? Nature creates freaks: cows are bulemic dogs. Anyway, s'all bs, the universe is life. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Dec 10 2010, 01:14 AM Post #48 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Ah, a long post. You asked for it. N.B. It'd be helpful if you ended your sentences where a thought ends. Since life obviously occurs in a gazillion forms on Earth and with that DNA in a gazillion of different sequences, I can only assume you refer to the particular structure of DNA by saying only "one form" has ever been found. That's also untrue: DNA occurs in different structural forms. Furthermore, some organisms are actually RNA-based (instead of DNA). Even the "logic" is strange. Why couldn't a unique thing originate from several distinct entities? There is only "one form" of you, yet there were two entities you immediately originated from... as a matter of fact, for all we know, your mum could have been an earthling and your dad an alien. That'd explain a lot Now as for the actual origin of DNA, it's theorised. But that "life" is possible without DNA, is a fact. An RNA-based world here on Earth predating the current overwhelmingly DNA-based one is also theorised.
No, we don't see. What sort of a conclusion is that? We do not even know whether the universe is or has been flooded with intelligent life. Most of the present universe doesn't "appear" to us at all, so you can't say what it apparently is or is not.
Nothing at all suggests that weedlike Earth-type life ought to be a norm across the universe under different conditions if life occured by accident here. An accident can be unique just as well as it might re-occur. The pro-ET folks take the middle ground saying it probably occured elsewhere. Taking the extremities for granted doesn't discredit the idea, it discredits you.
Exactly as you say, some form of life may evolve in unexpected places. Chances are we do not have sufficient data from these places either and can not tell whether or not life is present there. Which again brings a argument why you can't even tell if there's abundant life in the universe.
If you suggested that I believe a white-bearded old man brings presents to children every winter with a flying reindeer sleigh in return for a cookie, a glass of milk, and a year of good behaviour, that'd be about just as close to what I meant. :lol: I was implying nothing more than what I wrote: it's conceivable that at the beginning of life, there was no deliberate attempt for self-preservation. To elaborate: molecules do not have will, nor do they appreciate things, but they do change due to outside effects and behave in a determined way. (Science attempts to generalize and describe this.) Life need not be similar elsewhere, nor need it have developed the same way. Certainly, it need not even exist. Everything is an assumption at this point.
If you wish to give willpower to molecules, you need to be a philosopher indeed. For the rest of us, it's simply the laws of nature. Life needn't want to live, it's quite enough that it is forced to.
It's certainly all BS. People make money printing this on T-shirts. ![]() --- ...so I edited this trying to cut some stuff / be more clear but failed to make it shorter :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Mercurius of Cappadocia | Dec 10 2010, 02:18 AM Post #49 |
|
King of the Round Table Knights
|
yeah.. i was also having trouble with the idea that DNA is of a single source. I just don't see it. It's, in a very stupid analogy, not unlike saying any organic structure, or inorganic for that matter, couldn't have happened organically, because what we see as a final product, something complex like DNA, seems to be something that couldn't have occurred out of the mixing of inorganic agents. Secondly... there is compelling speculation that "life" could've been seeded on our planet through meteors and comets that also seeded our planet with significant quantities of water and minerals. Nothing rules that out.... But... the prevailing contemporary thinking appears to be the organic generation of RNA:
There is nothing to suggest that another planet in the universe that has water, an atmosphere, reasonable temperatures, and a star to feed it won't also have the makings of life. The periodic chart may prove incomplete, but there are most certainly common elements on other planets. We are made of star-dust, is a silly but true statement. With the weeds, comes competition for resources and, consequently, biological complexity generated over vast periods of time. "Intelligence" is a result of competition for resources amongst diverse life forms. If you really think that all that we have here is a singular invention of a universe that is otherwise replete with commonality, replication, and chronic patterns.... it is simply impossible for me to think that way. The same things that made up our planet also made up others. If life occurred organically on our planet, then it can occur elsewhere given similar conditions (and we are finding those "conditions" mutable). If life occurred first off our planet and was seeded on our planet by meteors or etc, then the question is moot.... life occurs in the universe, and intelligence is a consequence of complexity and competition.
Look if two Lawrence Livermore astrophysicists tell me the universe is X years old, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel to try to prove them wrong. You may as well say "I think, therefore I am" and forget the rest of "knowledge".
This is what Darwin believed to be the conditions that led to special variation to create fitness to the local needs of the species.... and that which, when drawn out over vast periods of time, can generate vast changes in life forms, simple to complex, creating tremendous, unfathomable biological diversity on our planet..... one of trillions in the universe. And it all began in nucleic acids in some kind of water, feeding on sunlight. Now the weeds are competing for every ounce of resource available on the planet. And clearly, when there is diverse life and a finite planet, intelligence is a useful means of securing sustenance. And there are trillions of finite planets in the universe.
If we are talking about TIME....then we're all blips, everyone and everything....person, species, planet, universe. ![]() Contemporary theory is toying with the idea that the universe is also subject to the chance and numbers required for success.... this is a foundation of multiverse theory. Birth takes accident, accident takes numbers to get it right, or it's just a miracle.... Physics may prove Buddha right in time.... or sweet Jesus. Or neither. |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Dec 10 2010, 05:56 AM Post #50 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
One at a time girls! See, just like a democratic politics, you have to blowhard to get noticed. So it has been asserted that !!! There is more than one form of life on earth. Terran life didn't originate on Terra Life could evolve the same way on another planet as it did on earth. Life began on earth as nucleic acids in water Astrophysicists know what they're talking about Life could be different elsewhere molecules have no requirement to awareness to produce something that has self awareness life is forced to exist, not existing in spite of force. That it's possible that the universe is flooded with life despite our present inability to detect any, and that our inability to see any is not evidence of anything TIME = everything is a blip. Why couldn't a unique thing originate from several distinct entities? Yeah? One form, drop the d. Then it didn't even evolve here! We have a statistic of 0 for genesis? Suppose it could, beyond using science fiction, what possible reason could there be for the absurdly massive effort of sending manned craft to earth, astropoultry pssht? "..." lol, forgive me for taking with a pinch of salt an assertion based on various levels of unproven formula, inferred matter and arbitrary constants. I'll grant it's as good as we've got, but evidence it isn't. It could be, but people when they say alien tend to mean alien humans. Or rather it's good to realise that if life exists elsewhere it probably didn't come about looking like dna/rna. Unless that dna/rna is a particularly useful or likely pattern. ..."inorganic" "awareness" .. If we invest knowledge with value, one part of the value must be in its potential use, no? If we place value in the potential for the use of knowledge, even if not by ourselves, we place value in the lives and actions of others, if we do that we place value..blahblah, the point is that whether "real" or "illusory," life seeks to preserve itself, gaining an attribute whose functions are explained by ET but origin is not. Except insofar as we say there is no difference between life and nonlife which renders this thread obsolete. If life is forced into existence [then applies itself to continued survival] it's "weed"ness would imply that in atleast several instances it would succeed in that continued survival, if intelligence is a/the logical conclusion in that drive towards survival it would be reasonable to assume some instances of that life developed comparative intelligence. god this is getting long again. blipness..if you write on a piece of paper, it's been written on. I don't get where the uniqueness thing came from at all, i don't recall saying that all life was the same, simply that what life we know of shares a format. "So you think pplz believe not only" pplz!pplz! Din usually so circumspect s'hard to find a belief. /feels like he just spent a long time typing nothing much. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Dec 10 2010, 10:32 AM Post #51 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Who the heck wants to go one at a time every time? Not me, not you. It's so dull anyway. So yea right, why not drop the D that Dagzez may digest better for the benefit of all mankind, at least partly. Well, so one could say that the R is less complex, less stable = more likely to mutate, and possibly evolved into D over time here on Earth. And there you'd have your stat of genesis for D. Of course nobody alive would have been there to record it on their iPhone, which is too bad, but such is the nature of things, I do believe. What else. If there is D here, and there indisputably is, or at least I accept that there is, which you may also take as another rare belief of mine, well, then it musta came from somewhere. If it came from outside, then there is/was ET life, which is to say, Q.E.D. if that had been what I wanted to dee. If it didn't, then you do have a stat of genesis on Earth yet again, which is to say hooray, if that had been what I wanted to dee. But of course, I wasn't going to dee anything, really. I just am, therefore I think. Why, yes, I think, difference between life and non-life back then, when, then, at the start of life must have been minuscule. Like, one small step for a molecule, one giant leap for Buddhas and mer-people. Now, with all the complex lifeforms in place, the difference is more apparent, but you know what they say about appearances. You do? Tell me. No, don't. What, life shares a format? Sure, it's all alive, innit? Well, not really. Some of it is dead, strange. It must feel strange to them too. I wonder what it feels like to be an RNA virus that eats DNA people, isn't there something to liken this to in politics while we are at it? O, but you noticed my circumspection? That's so sweet of you. Yes, I just had it redone. Do you like it this way? Ah erm, so I just wrote on the Internet, and now it's been written on. God consented. Thank you. |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Dec 10 2010, 06:33 PM Post #52 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
<3 <3 <3 Life could & probably does/should have more than one format, it seems unreasonable/counterintuitive for it to stick to an~ ~na no, dead life isn't life. |
![]() |
|
| Kronos | Dec 10 2010, 07:35 PM Post #53 |
|
Don't forget about GNA which could be a precursor to both RNA and DNA with some traits that would suite the early earth better than the latter two. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Dec 10 2010, 07:47 PM Post #54 |
|
Master of Spam
|
No? Yet DNA doesn't disappear upon death of the organism. Dead life shares the format too.
I suppose they hadn't discovered that yet when I went to school :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Mercurius of Cappadocia | Dec 10 2010, 09:59 PM Post #55 |
|
King of the Round Table Knights
|
yes... that's how i think about it, with minor quibbles.
You don't know it is an absurdly massive effort... it could be absurdly easy for all we know. And it certainly could prove as absurdly massive as our trip to the moon, or Columbus, Darwin, or take your pick.... The motivation would be the same... a search for knowledge, a hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, exploitation of resources, evolutionary anthropology, tourism, or absurdly wicked reality TV.
Nothing to forgive... this is entertainment.
I don't presume we haven't already found that evidence......
If life occurs only on this planet out of trillions, then it is unique to the universe. You also were talking about a "single source" for DNA, which had me looking for clarification. |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Dec 10 2010, 11:37 PM Post #56 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
"dead life isn't life" "No? Yet DNA doesn't disappear upon death of the organism. Dead life shares the format too." What organism? If the DNA has survived in an operable form then it is still alive, the state of the rest of an organism is irrelevant, or are we supposing there are different levels of life? Anyway.. The King is dead! Long live the King!" DNA breaks down all the time, as do parent organisms, but the death of one does not equate to the death of the other. Or "A mortuary contains dead bodies" doesn't mean the same thing as "A mortuary only contains dead bodies." At any rate [nucleic acid of any sort] DNA doesn't = life, the properties that bring us to appreciate it as different to the 'inorganic.' HAL, for instance, would be considered alive. Which goes back to the original.. "the product would appear to be greater than the sum of the parts" GNA au naturel?
Massive efforts? More hours are poured into video games in a week than went into any of those projects. Whilst to detect life on a planet within a few hundred years of the discovery of electricity and then get a ship there, when it could apparently occur anywhere in the universe would be quite an undertaking... Not to diminish the results, but...
Again, I don't think I understand. That isn't the same as saying all life is the same. Crystalline structures follow rules, this doesn't mean that all crystals are the same. More to the point, why is it so easy to believe that life came to our planet from elsewhere, but not that we are living on a rock that did the astounding thing of being first, possibly alone, and be the source that will spread life to elsewhere? You have some evidence to suggest that life formed spontaneously multiple times? Which all really takes us back to D: |
![]() |
|
| Kronos | Dec 17 2010, 03:27 AM Post #57 |
|
Going back to the original topic, I did a little bit of maths earlier and have come up with a fairly conservative estimate of 11,300,000 planets within the Milky Way with atleast single celled organisms with an average seperation of 68 light years. This is only taking into account Sol like stars within the GHZ that have the possibility to harbour intelligent life so I'd be confident it would be quite a bit higher including Red Dwarfs and the like. As for developing from single celled to intelligent life It wouldn't be anything more than an uneducated guess at this point, but a pool of 11.3M isn't bad odds. |
![]() |
|
| Mercurius of Cappadocia | Dec 17 2010, 04:34 AM Post #58 |
|
King of the Round Table Knights
|
Well... I don't know what your math is based on, but it agrees with my predilections, so why worry? lol Multiply your findings times the 3-500 billion galaxies in the universe.... Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and our earliest evidence of life, as far as I know, is fossilized bacteria, complete with DNA, that is around 3.4 billion years old. It's significant that life developed rather rapidly in very inhospitable terrain.... 3.4 billion years is a substantial percentage of the 13.75 billion year age of the universe, so the number of planet with highly developed intelligent life must be quite limited. But we're talking about huge numbers, and we have no clue how fast this intelligence can evolve. Perhaps we're slow developers, or fast.... And we also know species can die out fast with common occurrences, like asteroids.... Planets are simply the aggregation of smaller junk that combined like drops of water on a windshield. It's clearly a common occurence and restarting life on a planet is pretty harmful to evolutionary paths... obviously. Average separation of 68 light years? is that all? |
![]() |
|
| Kronos | Dec 17 2010, 06:57 AM Post #59 |
|
Yep, thats taking into account the fact that it only encompasses the Galactic habitable Zone which has an inner radius of 12,000 ly, outer radius of 36,000 ly and thickness of 1000 ly so it's only 68 ly as all those stars are the 20% in the GHZ next to each other. Gleise 581 g is only 20 ly away and fullfills most of the requirements down to Fz except it's not type G. my complete equation is something like: N = N* Fh Fc Fs Fm Fg Fp Fz Fb Fe Where: N = number of planets with simple life that has the realistic potential to become intelligent. N* = number of Stars in the Milky Way Fh = fraction of N* within the GHZ Fc = fraction of Fh not in clusters Fs = fraction of Fc that are single stars in stable orbits Fm = fraction of Fs with adequate metalicity to both support complex life and form rocky planets. Fg = fraction of Fm that are type G like the sun. Fp = fraction of Fg with rocky inner planets Fz = fraction of Fp with a planet in the planetary habitable zone that are wet and rocky Fb = fraction of Fz with adequate biochemistry during the life window Fe = Fraction of Fb with evolutionary success. The one thing missing is legth of time life will last. the figures I used were 300 billion, 20%, 70%, 30%, 50%, 8%, 50%, 10%, 90% and 50% respectively. Which comes to 11.3m. So 68 ly seems more than plausible given the geometry and thats not including all the non-G stars that could easily support simple life. |
![]() |
|
| Kronos | Dec 17 2010, 07:29 AM Post #60 |
|
Just looked it up and there's about 511 type G stars within 100 ly so with the above equation you get 1.2 planets wqith life within 100 ly, but other parts of the Galaxy are more compact/have more G stars it seems. |
![]() |
|
| YellowMelon | Dec 17 2010, 11:40 AM Post #61 |
![]()
Retired Applicant
|
Interesting fact: the town I teach in has the most UFO sightings in Canada. And judging by the type of person in that town, I would concur with Kronos' statement. Too much alcohol and too much weed and too many mushrooms and too much inbreeding. |
![]() |
|
| Barrett of Maidstone | Dec 17 2010, 12:46 PM Post #62 |
|
Retired Knight
|
I blame their schooling! |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Dec 17 2010, 01:44 PM Post #63 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Time to tell your pupils you aren't really an alien. Be convincing.
|
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Dec 18 2010, 12:50 PM Post #64 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Mathematical prediction for planets with life when there is no evidence that it was even possible to form life at any other point than when it did? In fact, there's not actually any evidence than genesis occurred on earth - merely that it was able to survive. If genesis did occur here 'naturally' it would be reasonable to conclude that it would happen more than once, as there's no compelling evidence that it did... As the evidence suggests it was only able to evolve during the time that it did and not since (assumed did here) the age of the universe is largely irrelevant. That the atmospheric changes brought about by the planetary scale survival of life are not necessarily survivable by said or available life is another factor that makes the Age moot. But anyway, astrophysics is mostly doctrinal insanity, x will last 60 billion years because it looks like a bowl of heated water with a lid but exists in y that has only existed 10 billion years, but i'm going to use the estimated age of a to determine the age of b to determine age of c and d, which i'm then going to use to determine the probable age of a! None of which I have any more evidence for than a string of numbers which are mostly optimistic guesses even by my own admission. It's no more scientific than stock markets at the end of the day. Guesswork, without ever having to roll the dice to see if you're right. Anyway! It's a funny thing that the best mathmo's I know can't find their way around a paperbag, and yet will probably earn a salary the equivalent of ten people that can find their way around a paperbag, and the optimism & hope for the future of our civilisation rests largely in their hands. I wouldn't trust them with a bra clasp. Was this the stereotype thread, accurate representation of cantab mathmo's & crpto's tho! |
![]() |
|
| Kronos | Dec 18 2010, 01:36 PM Post #65 |
|
I can tell Astrophysics and Biology aren't your best subjects
|
![]() |
|
| Mercurius of Cappadocia | Dec 18 2010, 07:40 PM Post #66 |
|
King of the Round Table Knights
|
No, but it fits the cantabrian logic of most of our threads.... ![]() I always liked HA.... Dag... we have considerable evidence that points to genesis on our planet. I can't hand you the fossil of the first bit of dust that had an attitude, but we've gotten quite far along the way.... And the evidence suggest life is a weed that grows in crazy places. |
![]() |
|
| Mercurius of Cappadocia | Dec 18 2010, 08:08 PM Post #67 |
|
King of the Round Table Knights
|
There is some kind of oddity about rural types seeing UFO's... Perhaps the lack of city light allows them to see lights in the sky easier? Boredom? Certainly the weed helps, and the shrooms. Inbreeding... well it is Canada... what are you going to do? Most of us don't look up at the sky much...you have to admit... and a moving "light in the sky" does not attract our attention unless it does 90 degree turns on a dime, or flies down and gives us an anal probe. UFO "hotspots"... sounds like mass delusion, or perhaps it is a phenomena of people hearing from other people and wanting to get the same attention..... a military base, mass delusion, ego-driven stuff.... or just a bunch of people who have learned to look up in the sky more often? Yakima, Wa.... rural.... large indian reservation.... a military base or two around.... Same place where 12 college kids were recently hospitalized for OD-ing on FourLoco. Everyone thought it was roofies, but no... just pure stupidity and alcohol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRoAdN9DCSY On the one hand, you have Fire Lookouts, sitting on top of hills and required to record every odd "light" they see. In the vid above you have an old lady who's spent 35 years spotting for fires and recorded around 100 ufo's in her log book.... Then you have people like this (one of the commenters on the youtube flick):
I think he should just tell his wife he's gay and quit the elaborate excuses for going to "the park" at 4 am..... :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Dec 19 2010, 02:26 PM Post #68 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Where is this evidence that points to genesis on this planet? There is none, there is evidence that points to genesis, that it occurred on this planet? None that I know of. Snow survives on roads for a time, doesn't mean it was created there. That we can make a theoretical model of how what might of been the first life might of evolved should the earth of been in a state it might of been - does not amount to evidence. Theory is not evidence. The evidence that life is a weed isn't very convincing to me atm. Yes I agree that once there is a sufficient diversity of life the likelihood of it surviving and increasing, becoming yet more diverse increases. But this always requires that something survives a particular change, that there is more than one form of life with sufficiently differing requirements and abilities at any particular point, that even there is the capacity for genetic change. That is by no means a foregone conclusion, the easiest lifeforms, probably, to evolve spontaneously are also those most vulnerable. As for my criticism of astrophysics, the knowledge of things outside are solar system is negligible, shifts, so much of physics is unknown and yet people make predictions on galaxies let alone solar systems. Mad. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Dec 19 2010, 05:30 PM Post #69 |
|
Master of Spam
|
But again, if life was not created here, then it was created elsewhere--- then life is possible and has existed elsewhere. Which ofc is an argument for ET intelligence. Still, that's the less likely origin, not because somebody says so, but simply because it requires more things to have happened in a specific way. |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Dec 20 2010, 03:36 PM Post #70 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
It doesn't require intelligence, and it doesn't require things to be more complicated. Nothing is or can be more complicated than the unknown, and given that genesis is an unknown.. And anyway, complicated or not doesn't really matter - we know genesis occured, we can't nor should look for the simplest possible explanation and settle on that, but for the right explanation. I mean, I don't disagree that SETI/space exploration is a worthwhile enterprise, indeed it's one of three. What I disagree with is the certainty that people embed in their knowledge of the unknown. The greater the mass a star has attained during its lifetime the more matter it has consumed the more likely that any planets that did accrete within its sphere of influence no longer exist as seperate entities. It does not seem likely to me that many stars have such a stable collation of trapped miscellania as does our own, each arguably adding its own merit to genesis if it occured on this planet. The particular set of attributes provided of such mass being contained in a gravitational influence without adding to the fused matter I don't think can be overstated, Jupiter for instance protects the Earth from vast amounts of radiation and larger bodies. Granted that this may one day be a binary system, though the distance between the sun and it's giants would seem to occlude that. Ofcourse, were it to become a binary system, or our star accrete a large proportion of the rest of the matter in even its current soi, any life evolved on this planet that has survived to that point would be wiped out in short order. Stellar matter in a particular area composed in different proportions will behave differently re: star & planet formation, arguably the less individual bodies that accrete the more likely star formation is but conversely the less likely planet formation is, though like having 5 boys, the more planets you have the more likely one is gay. Planets also are more likely to be made of heavier elements than the universal average would suggest, a lump of hydrogen ice forming a planet-core sized entity is exceedingly unlikely, given both the magnetic influence and the simple fact that it's 'soft.' Still, we agreed that what it is possible to relatively easy reanimate, isn't dead. Should the earth be broken up and scattered to the 18 corners of the Dagoverse during such an event it may one day spawn life again. Or should we build a thousand trillion small capsules full of dormant simple organisms & their requirements for immediate survival & fire them off into space? Who needs masters of orion terraforming technology when it's likely to be millions of years before you reach the place you're going ![]() Anyway. It strikes me that mankind is indeed the centre of the universe until proven otherwise, given that man can do what any other known life can do and much more, and life can do what a star, meteorite, planet cannot, even galaxy cannot. Human life is complex and absurd and would seem to invent its own rules that run counter to what is sensible. Can a star do that? Anybla |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Portcullis · Next Topic » |



)








2:37 PM Jul 11