Intelligent life in the Universe?

[chman]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Also, I apologize. I said 400 C, but I believe the temperature is closer to 400 F. Still pretty damn hot, but much more reasonable.

Aren't there organisms that live right by underwater volcanoes? I imagine that water is pretty hot.

 

[Gallix23]

It's hard for humans to even comprehend how big the universe is. I remember seeing a deep space photograph once of a black sky with millions of tiny bright dots everywhere, and the man explained that each dot was a galaxy similar to ours, each one having the same potential to support life as our own. There is no way that we are the only life in the universe. Will we ever contact other life? Maybe not, but I still definitely think there is.

 

[Cybii]

New planet? Are you talking about Gliese 581c? because that was discovered around 2007. Was another planet found?

When it comes to aliens, multiple universes, etc., I love listening to Michio Kaku! Just take a gander at some of his theories. I love him!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw8dcb8iKSM

If you're into space, you'll like listening to him. Some of his stuff can be out there (like his different stages of civilizations) but he makes good points overall.

 

[Cybii]

.

 

[Cybii]

must be one pretty damn big planet

You have to remember this represents pure water... "water" found on other planets probably have higher amounts of solutes or salts that make them withstand higher temperatures than earth's water.

 

[Zona Pellucida]

New planet? Are you talking about Gliese 581c? because that was discovered around 2007. Was another planet found?

When it comes to aliens, multiple universes, etc., I love listening to Michio Kaku! Just take a gander at some of his theories. I love him!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw8dcb8iKSM

If you're into space, you'll like listening to him. Some of his stuff can be out there (like his different stages of civilizations) but he makes good points overall.

Love that guy! I also love 'The Universe' on The History Channel which he frequently speaks on.

 

[strummin]

Hah now we need a mathematician who can do two things:

-Calculate, based on existing knowledge, the probability that there IS intelligent life somewhere else in the universe.

- Calculate, based on existing knowledge, the probability that we will ever find it.

I'm assuming it would be an enormously difficult task to incorporate the thousands of variables to come up with a formula for doing this.. and I'm assuming this formula would be extremely complex haha. Perhaps some genius statistician in the near future will do this as his/her PhD thesis. (Maybe someone has already done this? I don't know)

 

[redsquareblack]

Love that guy! I also love 'The Universe' on The History Channel which he frequently speaks on.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaate History. Hate it hate it hate it.

They effing love their Nostradamus. And Mason conspiracies. And Knights Templar. And grassy knolls. &c., &c., &c.

 

[Zona Pellucida]

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaate History. Hate it hate it hate it.

They effing love their Nostradamus. And Mason conspiracies. And Knights Templar. And grassy knolls. &c., &c., &c.

Totally agree with all that crap. Way too many shows about conspiracy theories. I just like 'The Universe' mostly.

 

[Omar Gooding]

uh NO.... no scientific experiement has shown s**t about how life can begin in water de novo, if you can cite me a paper on that please because that will settle a lot of debate out there.

I'm pretty sure that the Miller-Urey experiment was carried out in water. And I'm fairly certain that most theories on the origin of life have it beginning in water. Water offers the proper medium for reactions to occur and many people believe that that is how life began.

 

[Cybii]

Hah now we need a mathematician who can do two things:

-Calculate, based on existing knowledge, the probability that there IS intelligent life somewhere else in the universe.

- Calculate, based on existing knowledge, the probability that we will ever find it.

I'm assuming it would be an enormously difficult task to incorporate the thousands of variables to come up with a formula for doing this.. and I'm assuming this formula would be extremely complex haha. Perhaps some genius statistician in the near future will do this as his/her PhD thesis. (Maybe someone has already done this? I don't know)

There is such an equation... it's called the Drake equation.

 

[MilkmanAl]

Hah now we need a mathematician who can do two things:

-Calculate, based on existing knowledge, the probability that there IS intelligent life somewhere else in the universe.

- Calculate, based on existing knowledge, the probability that we will ever find it.

Uh...I wouldn't count on having a reasonable estimate for that any time soon. Considering we can't predict weather accurately for more than a couple days, it would be damn near impossible to get any useful predictions out of a far, far more complicated system. It's probably a chaotic process anyway.

There is such an equation... it's called the Drake equation.

The Drake Equation isn't exactly what I would call "reliable." The variables involved are basically placeholders for quantities we have no way of knowing yet.

 

[chman]

New planet? Are you talking about Gliese 581c? because that was discovered around 2007. Was another planet found?

When it comes to aliens, multiple universes, etc., I love listening to Michio Kaku! Just take a gander at some of his theories. I love him!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw8dcb8iKSM

If you're into space, you'll like listening to him. Some of his stuff can be out there (like his different stages of civilizations) but he makes good points overall.

Cool vid. I can dig it.

 

[Iso4ane]

This isn't a problem. In fact, it's wonderful, because in proposing a promising answer to an interesting question, a new, equally-interesting question emerges! That's the wond

Just because we haven't answered that question yet is no reason to chuck the entire line of thought.

erful thing about science: There are always questions.

Agreed, but it still raises the question..

Think you had a brain fart there. This isn't an issue for amino acids, peptides, and proteins.

Yeah, sorry has to do with DNA/RNA...

Subsequent trials utilizing different conditions have succeeded in producing other organic molecules, including amino acids.

Yes, but other experiments showed that nothing could happen as well

Yes, but only a little bit at a time. I know it seems like a huge leap to go from nothing to people, and practically speaking, the chances of it just happening spontaneously are effectively zero. But given enough time, and enough intervening steps that are only modestly unlikely, and you set the stage for a progression of developments that has led to life as we know it on Earth.

You should read Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable for a far more articulate treatment of the idea.

But given a random DNA strand 100 nucleotides in length, with is short by any standard, to find a specific sequence of DNA that long, assuming we could test each sequence in 10^-13 seconds it would take (4^100 or 1.6x10^60) Number of possibilities) / (10^13 possibilities tested per sec) = 1.6x10^47 seconds. And with the age of the universe estimated at 12 billions years (~10^20 seconds) you can see where the predicament comes in.

1.6x10^47 seconds >> 10^20 seconds,

But i agree with small things can add up to larger advances, but numbers don't lie.

I have no idea what you're getting at here.

Just preparing for the evolution/creation debate that's bound to happen.

 

[strummin]

I believe that Creator was the God spoken of in the Bible.

I have come to this conclusion as a result of personally reading what the Bible has to say, critically analyzing what I've been told throughout my education, and never taking anything at face value just because someone told me to believe one thing or another.

All scientists will agree one hundred percent with the fact that science has not, as of now, been able to come up with an explanation for everything. But that does not mean it will not. With all the research that is currently going on, imagine how much more knowledge we will have a hundred years from now.. and this knowledge will probably answer many questions we have today, and probably create more questions as well!

However, just because science does not offer a "sufficient" explanation of everything, that does nothing to prove the existence of a Creator. From the scientific perspective, there is no proof of a Creator - if you have faith, then you have faith.. you don't need proof for faith. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence that a Creator exists. And I do believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

And I highly doubt you've truly looked at the Bible critically. Anyone who looked at any of these "holy books" critically would have ditched them a long time ago.

 

[bamtuba]

All scientists will agree one hundred percent with the fact that science has not, as of now, been able to come up with an explanation for everything. But that does not mean it will not. With all the research that is currently going on, imagine how much more knowledge we will have a hundred years from now.. and this knowledge will probably answer many questions we have today, and probably create more questions as well!

However, just because science does not offer a "sufficient" explanation of everything, that does nothing to prove the existence of a Creator. From the scientific perspective, there is no proof of a Creator - if you have faith, then you have faith.. you don't need proof for faith. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence that a Creator exists. And I do believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

And I highly doubt you've truly looked at the Bible critically. Anyone who looked at any of these "holy books" critically would have ditched them a long time ago.

Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree about the first point, and as for the second it would be a great deal of assuming to lead you to this conclusion.

The underlined is the same biased, un-scientific reasoning that is, unfortunately, so rampant today. If you have looked at these "holy books" yourself and come to you own conclusion, then that's your opinion. But honestly, have you? Or are you just making more assumption?

 

[strummin]

There is such an equation... it's called the Drake equation.

I was thinking something way more complex... and consequently, much more accurate than that. And by complexity, I mean that it takes into account many many more variables than the Drake equation does.

 

[bamtuba]

There is no scientifically acceptable evidence that a Creator exists.

Sure there is. It's everywhere. People just choose to interpret that evidence in ways they see fit.

That's how science works, like it or not.

We just come at that evidence with different points of view.

 

[Insulinshock]

I remember hearing that a scientist did a statistics analysis and basically what he said was that there are so many solar systems out there that even if a billionth of the solar systems were capable of producing life-like conditions then there would still be 10 billion solar systems that could potentially hold life.

There is just too much out there for us to even wrap our heads around.

You also have to wonder though; we've never picked up any kind of evidence that there is life out there. There was something called the Wow! Signal back in like 1977 that couldn't be explained, but other than that we've never recovered anything in terms of radio waves and the like.

 

[strummin]

The underlined is the same biased, un-scientific reasoning that is, unfortunately, so rampant today. If you have looked at these "holy books" yourself and come to you own conclusion, then that's your opinion. But honestly, have you? Or are you just making more assumption?

Yes, I haven't looked at all of them (although I have looked at all the major ones), and yes, I am sort-of making an assumption. But just because my reasoning is "un-scientific", it does not make in invalid.

Let's take the Bible, since you're so fond of it. Does there parts of the Bible that could be called "misogynistic"? Yes, there are. Both you and I know that. Now, you might argue that the Bible has to be interpreted in a certain manner. Okay, I agree. I'm interpreting it wrong! So my question it - why does this God of yours (who I'm assuming is a perfect Creator), put such ambiguous things in the Bible in the first place? Answer me please.

 

[Cybii]

I was thinking something way more complex... and consequently, much more accurate than that. And by complexity, I mean that it takes into account many many more variables than the Drake equation does.

complexity does not equal accuracy. However, there is the problem of not even knowing the values for each variable. So even if you did have 1,000 variables in the equation... Who would know how many stars have planets in our galaxy? If you knew one day, you'd have to change the value often since new stars with planets are always being discovered. So basically, the equation would be worthless.

 

[Iso4ane]

. And I do believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

Science and religion were not always mutually exclusive... Back in the old days it was religion that propelled science, people were looking for God, and they did so through observation of nature, or what is know as the scientific method today. And if you look at how science was done in different civilizations, you will see that due to differences in beliefs/religion, that they're approach to science are different as well. There is a book out there that talks about this discrepancy but I don't remember the name...

 

[bamtuba]

Yes, I haven't looked at all of them (although I have looked at all the major ones), and yes, I am sort-of making an assumption. But just because my reasoning is "un-scientific", it does not make in invalid.

Let's take the Bible, since you're so fond of it. Does there parts of the Bible that could be called "misogynistic"? Yes, there are. Both you and I know that. Now, you might argue that the Bible has to be interpreted in a certain manner. Okay, I agree. I'm interpreting it wrong! So my question it - why does this God of yours (who I'm assuming is a perfect Creator), put such ambiguous things in the Bible in the first place? Answer me please.

Well, as I'm sure you'll agree after re-reading what you wrote (I hope), this is a bit of an immature attack based on one aspect of something you admit to not reading.

There is nothing that I can say to change your mind and I won't get into a pointless argument. You put words in my mouth and assumed things must be interpreted a certain way to understand them. The Bible is clear about what it says and much of it written in a social context and in a time of history where NO culture was different. Who back then had equal rights for women? Which people? Everything in context my friend.

There really is very little ambiguity, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. Read it for yourself if you want to understand it. Many a former athiest has done just that.

 

[strummin]

complexity does not equal accuracy. However, there is the problem of not even knowing the values for each variable. So even if you did have 1,000 variables in the equation... Who would know how many stars have planets in our galaxy? If you knew one day, you'd have to change the value often since new stars with planets are always being discovered. So basically, the equation would be worthless.

I agree complexity does not always equal accuracy - but more variables usually mean better accuracy.. just like adding an "air resistance" variable into equations of motion make them more accurate.

Nevertheless, I agree with you. You make a good point. Variables are useless if we don't know what to plug in for them, and if we're just guesstimating for each of the variables, we'd end up with the possibility of a probability of anywhere between 0 and 1... rendering the formula pretty much useless. Hah.

 

[Cybii]

I remember hearing that a scientist did a statistics analysis and basically what he said was that there are so many solar systems out there that even if a billionth of the solar systems were capable of producing life-like conditions then there would still be 10 billion solar systems that could potentially hold life.

There is just too much out there for us to even wrap our heads around.

You also have to wonder though; we've never picked up any kind of evidence that there is life out there. There was something called the Wow! Signal back in like 1977 that couldn't be explained, but other than that we've never recovered anything in terms of radio waves and the like.

Fermi's paradox right there.

another reason to listen to Michio Kaku (can you tell I like him?! 😀)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw8dcb8iKSM

Like he says, we only scanned a few thousand light years across our galaxy... also, we only scanned for signals at the hydrogen frequency. So just because we humans haven't heard anything, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[strummin]

There really is very little ambiguity, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. Read it for yourself if you want to understand it. Many a former athiest has done just that.

Thanks for not answering my question. Anyway, I do agree that we will probably not be able to change each others minds, so it's somewhat useless debating over the internet.

And yes, I have read parts of the Bible. Not all of it (I gave up - it was too boring.. I guess whoever wrote it isn't a very good writer). But have you read other "holy books" i.e. Gita, Koran, Torah...? What makes you think the Bible is superior? Perhaps if you were born in Delhi in India and born into a devout Hindu family, you would be saying the same things you're saying right now about the Gita.

 

[Cybii]

Science and religion were not always mutually exclusive... Back in the old days it was religion that propelled science, people were looking for God, and they did so through observation of nature, or what is know as the scientific method today. And if you look at how science was done in different civilizations, you will see that due to differences in beliefs/religion, that they're approach to science are different as well. There is a book out there that talks about this discrepancy but I don't remember the name...

To jump on the science and religion topic for a short bit, a very religious friend of mine dragged me out to see the film Expelled a while back... and I was surprised to hear about how many established scientists have been discredited/fired from their jobs for being open creationists and pointing out flaws in current theories of evolution... just a thought.

 

[redsquareblack]

Sure there is. It's everywhere. People just choose to interpret that evidence in ways they see fit.

That's how science works, like it or not.

No, that's most assuredly not how science works.

We just come at that evidence with different points of view.

Yes, there's the scientific point of view, and the nonscientific point of view.

Mind you, though I'm not religious myself, I'm not about to argue against God, gods, or religion in general. But don't let's pretend that there's scientific evidence for it.

 

[redsquareblack]

To jump on the science and religion topic for a short bit, a very religious friend of mine dragged me out to see the film Expelled a while back... and I was surprised to hear about how many established scientists have been discredited/fired from their jobs for being open creationists and pointing out flaws in current theories of evolution... just a thought.

What a terrible movie.

 

[bamtuba]

Thanks for not answering my question. Anyway, I do agree that we will probably not be able to change each others minds, so it's somewhat useless debating over the internet.

And yes, I have read parts of the Bible. Not all of it (I gave up - it was too boring.. I guess whoever wrote it isn't a very good writer). But have you read other "holy books" i.e. Gita, Koran, Torah...? What makes you think the Bible is superior? Perhaps if you were born in Delhi in India and born into a devout Hindu family, you would be saying the same things you're saying right now about the Gita.

You asked a question and then answered it yourself in a very immature manner.

Read those other parts and then maybe you will understand what you want to know.

I think the Bible is correct because it is the only one of the books that you mentioned that has a track record of being correct historically and prophetically.

I was not born into a Christian family. I say what I say because I've read the book and critically analyzed it without bashing it ad nauseum because I did not understand it.

I will be happy to answer any legitimate questions you have via PM so that this thread can get back to the business of productive discussion.

 

[Cybii]

Love that guy! I also love 'The Universe' on The History Channel which he frequently speaks on.

Yay! Ya gotta love Kaku and the History channel! And I totally used to watch all of those conspiracy shows and "In Search Of..." They were a guilty pleasure of mine back in the day.😛

 

[Iso4ane]

Thanks for not answering my question. Anyway, I do agree that we will probably not be able to change each others minds, so it's somewhat useless debating over the internet.

And yes, I have read parts of the Bible. Not all of it (I gave up - it was too boring.. I guess whoever wrote it isn't a very good writer). But have you read other "holy books" i.e. Gita, Koran, Torah...? What makes you think the Bible is superior? Perhaps if you were born in Delhi in India and born into a devout Hindu family, you would be saying the same things you're saying right now about the Gita.

Somebody, once said that if you read all the Holy books' critically and then come the conclusion that no God exists then you can consider yourself atheist.

However, if you skip the whole process of reading the Holy Books critically and just come to the conclusion there is no God, you're a *****.

It's as if some non-scientist said he doesn't believe in global warming, since he doesn't know anything, we as scientists would call him/her a *****. However, if a well-known and respected scientist made the same remark, it would be viewed differently.

 

[bamtuba]

No, that's most assuredly not how science works.



Yes, there's the scientific point of view, and the nonscientific point of view.

Mind you, though I'm not religious myself, I'm not about to argue against God, gods, or religion in general. But don't let's pretend that there's scientific evidence for it.

Creating a story that supports or refutes a particular hypothesis based on evidence seen in the lab or in nature is how research happens. This is scientific the last time I checked. So yes, it most assuredly is how science works.

No one is pretending. There is plenty of evidence for an intelligence behind a design that has been used ad nauseum to populate a planet that exists amongst many others where the same type of life has yet to be proven to exist, let alone any type of life. But you have one hypothesis and I have another. Neither has been "proven or disproven" though MANY have been trying for years to do just that.

Until that day it would be kind of silly to assume the other side completely wrong just because it doesn't fit our world view.

 

[Cybii]

What a terrible movie.

Why do you say that?

Granted, I didn't enjoy it or thought it was entertaining, but it did bring up the issue well (and I remember it even years later).

 

[strummin]

Somebody, once said that if you read all the Holy books' critically and then come the conclusion that no God exists then you can consider yourself atheist.

However, if you skip the whole process of reading the Holy Books critically and just come to the conclusion there is no God, you're a *****.

So basically no one call him/her-self an atheist until he/she has ready EVERY holy book critically?

Am I allowed to change your argument and say that nobody can call him/her-self a Christian (for example) until he/she has read EVERY holy book critically and consequently determined that the Bible is superior of them all?

And by the way, who said this? I'd like to know his/her name at least.

 

[Iso4ane]

Oh, btw this is an interesting read, and is more in depth to a point I made eariler.

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

 

[Iso4ane]

So basically no one call him/her-self an atheist until he/she has ready EVERY holy book critically?

Am I allowed to change your argument and say that nobody can call him/her-self a Christian (for example) until he/she has read EVERY holy book critically and consequently determined that the Bible is superior of them all?

And by the way, who said this? I'd like to know his/her name at least.

I don't remember who said it, but both arguments, your's and mine still stand.

 

[MB333999]

Heres the thing about life...when we search for "life" the problem is we only have one model on which to base it. That is life as we know it on planet Earth. So our search for life naturally has been to look for similar organisms. Where does one begin? the universe is infinitely large we cant just blindly search... so we turn to our model, Earth. We look for planets that share similar properties as earth does. Things like are they in a habitable zone? which may be defined by characteristics such as temperature that allows for liquid water, far enough from the sun that the solar winds dont destroy the atmosphere). Do they have a similar size as the earth? similar chemical composition? Are these sort of planets rare or common? If common perhaps we are not so unique. Interestingly enough, one of saturns moons (I may be mistaken it might be jupiters moon) is covered in ice. But they found ruptures in the ice and canals, which led them to beleive that below the ice exists liquid water. The moon is so far out that it is unlikely the sun is providing the energy to do this, so it is believed that the moons core is providing the thermal energy for this. If this is the case, this maybe the closest place for us to search for life (still incredibly far...but relatively within arms reach).

BTW has anyone ever heard of the fermi paradox?

It basically states that if the universe is so massive then the probability of life should be high. But if they exist, why havent we seen them????

I'd like to hear your thoughts about it.

 

[MB333999]

wait are we talking about religion now.... I hope no1 is vouching for the ontological proof. CUZ ITS GARBAGE!

 

[KeyzerSoze]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but this thread has really been derailed.

 

[strummin]

Heres the thing about life...when we search for "life" the problem is we only have one model on which to base it. That is life as we know it on planet Earth. So our search for life naturally has been to look for similar organisms. Where does one begin? the universe is infinitely large we cant just blindly search... so we turn to our model, Earth. We look for planets that share similar properties as earth does. Things like are they in a habitable zone? which may be defined by characteristics such as temperature that allows for liquid water, far enough from the sun that the solar winds dont destroy the atmosphere). Do they have a similar size as the earth? similar chemical composition? Are these sort of planets rare or common? If common perhaps we are not so unique. Interestingly enough, one of saturns moons (I may be mistaken it might be jupiters moon) is covered in ice. But they found ruptures in the ice and canals, which led them to beleive that below the ice exists liquid water. The moon is so far out that it is unlikely the sun is providing the energy to do this, so it is believed that the moons core is providing the thermal energy for this. If this is the case, this maybe the closest place for us to search for life (still incredibly far...but relatively within arms reach).

BTW has anyone ever heard of the fermi paradox?

It basically states that if the universe is so massive then the probability of life should be high. But if they exist, why havent we seen them????

I'd like to hear your thoughts about it.

You make an excellent argument. As for your question, yes the universe is massive, so yes let's assume that there are many life forms out there. Can we then argue that - because it's so massive and our technology (relatively) inferior.. that's why we haven't seen them!

 

[MB333999]

You make an excellent argument. As for your question, yes the universe is massive, so yes let's assume that there are many life forms out there. Can we then argue that - because it's so massive and our technology (relatively) inferior.. that's why we haven't seen them!

Yes you can argue that however, another factor that we have to consider is time and scale. The age of the universe is approx 14 billion years (generally accepted). Another important consideration is that its taken 4 billion years to get from the very first signs of life on earth to where we are today. If we assume that "life" generally takes a similar amount of time wherever it is, a species that began much earlier than we did will have had billions of years of further technological development. Such species in order to seek more resources may consider to first colonize their star system and then move to nearby ones and colonize those. Even with "slow" transport (that just beyond what we can do) the milky way can be colonized within 50 million years (which is relatively small given the age of the universe). So if intelligent life does in fact exist ( and since there are stars much older than our sun it is a fair argument that if life can come about now it could come about much earlier as well) where are they???

 

[chman]

Yes you can argue that however, another factor that we have to consider is time and scale. The age of the universe is approx 14 billion years (generally accepted). Another important consideration is that its taken 4 billion years to get from the very first signs of life on earth to where we are today. If we assume that "life" generally takes a similar amount of time wherever it is, a species that began much earlier than we did will have had billions of years of further technological development. Such species in order to seek more resources may consider to first colonize their star system and then move to nearby ones and colonize those. Even with "slow" transport (that just beyond what we can do) the milky way can be colonized within 50 million years (which is relatively small given the age of the universe). So if intelligent life does in fact exist ( and since there are stars much older than our sun it is a fair argument that if life can come about now it could come about much earlier as well) where are they???

Who says that they are in our galaxy? We know very little about the energy (black energy as it is called) and where that leads. We have no idea how far these so called life forms are away from us, and how far they would need to travel. In theory, they may need to travel the opposite direction (against gravity) to come out a black hole to get to our galaxy.

That probably makes no sense, and to be honest, I don't really understand it either (and neither do astrophysicists working for NASA). But what I am getting at is that just because we can't see them, or have not been visited, does not mean they are not out there.

 

[FlowRate]

What if we actually find it? hahaha

The ability to maintain water on a planet's surface means that the planet most likely fits all of the criteria to sustain life. There are exceptions like Titan where there's evidence of water under ice oceans that come from geothermal energy melting the ice.

"There are 400 billion stars out there in our galaxy alone. Now if only one out of a million of those stars had planets. Alright? And if just one out of a million of those had life. And if just one out of a million of those had intelligent life…there would be literally millions of civilizations out there."

Maybe I'm lame for analyzing this... buut...

400*10^9 / 10^6 = 400*10^3

400,000 / 10^6 already leaves <1. (10 planets for each star still leaves about 4)

So maybe I misinterpreted the math here... But "intelligent life" is certainly a statistical super-rarity IMO.

 

[MB333999]

Who says that they are in our galaxy? We know very little about the energy (black energy as it is called) and where that leads. We have no idea how far these so called life forms are away from us, and how far they would need to travel. In theory, they may need to travel the opposite direction (against gravity) to come out a black hole to get to our galaxy.

That probably makes no sense, and to be honest, I don't really understand it either (and neither do astrophysicists working for NASA). But what I am getting at is that just because we can't see them, or have not been visited, does not mean they are not out there.

I totally agree that just because we havent seen them, doesnt mean they are not out there. The reason I made the assumption that they were in our galaxy is because of probability. Based on what we know thus far it seems likely that IF life arises, it should arise in our galaxy given its vastness. This is a field that is difficult to prove anything because we cant exactly run "experiments" and test hypos so we have to play our odds. As for coming out of a black hole, not even light has the velocity to escape a black hole once its inside the event horizon (and nothing moves faster). Although it is very interesting to note that even tho nothing can escape a black hole, they do LOSE MASS. How can that be possible if nothing can escape?? The answer is Hawking radiation. Energy spontaneously interconverts into matter, when this happens a matter and anti-matter particle are formed and essentially immediately destroy each other.HOWEVER, if one particle formed inside the event horizon and the other outside of it, they would not be able to do so. Thus that one particle that is able to escape the black hole appears to us as radiation, hawking radiation, named after the guy who came up with the great idea, Steven hawking. RIP.

Sorry, i digress.

 

[chman]

I totally agree that just because we havent seen them, doesnt mean they are not out there. The reason I made the assumption that they were in our galaxy is because of probability. Based on what we know thus far it seems likely that IF life arises, it should arise in our galaxy given its vastness. This is a field that is difficult to prove anything because we cant exactly run "experiments" and test hypos so we have to play our odds. As for coming out of a black hole, not even light has the velocity to escape a black hole once its inside the event horizon (and nothing moves faster). Although it is very interesting to note that even tho nothing can escape a black hole, they do LOSE MASS. How can that be possible if nothing can escape?? The answer is Hawking radiation. Energy spontaneously interconverts into matter, when this happens a matter and anti-matter particle are formed and essentially immediately destroy each other.HOWEVER, if one particle formed inside the event horizon and the other outside of it, they would not be able to do so. Thus that one particle that is able to escape the black hole appears to us as radiation, hawking radiation, named after the guy who came up with the great idea, Steven hawking. RIP.

Sorry, i digress.

I wasn't actually suggesting that something could come out of a black hole. But that might be the necessity if we are ever to meet other life forms. Because, and correct me if I'm wrong, they (the scientists) now believe that these black holes could open into countless other universes.

Like I said, I can't wrap my little brain around this stuff, but it is very interesting.

 

[MB333999]

I wasn't actually suggesting that something could come out of a black hole. But that might be the necessity if we are ever to meet other life forms. Because, and correct me if I'm wrong, they (the scientists) now believe that these black holes could open into countless other universes.

Like I said, I can't wrap my little brain around this stuff, but it is very interesting.

Sorry I guess I misunderstood. I think what you are referring to are wormholes.
No1 knows the shape of the universe but imagine it is curved like this "U"
To get from one end of the U to the other you would have to travel a long distance. Now imagine a horizontal line connecting the two ends of the U. This is analogous to a wormhole. Its sort of thought as a possibility that may allow of intersteller travel but its really all speculation at this point.

Unless i misunderstood you again and your actually referring to parallel universes? I believe thats more related to string theory (which I dont know anything about)


A few kool thoughts if this hasnt crossed your mind yet:
- everytime you look at a star your are really looking back in time, because it takes millions of years for light from those stars to reach us. A star may be exploding right now but we wouldnt see it till millions of years have passed

kool thought 2:
- all the elements heavier than iron can only be made during a supernova blast (need a lot of force to squish atoms together). So really, we were all born from a super nova blast!

When I was a kid I've always been fascinated by the stars just because they looked awesome, but now that I've started to ask questions its gotten all the more beautiful.

 

[chman]

Sorry I guess I misunderstood. I think what you are referring to are wormholes.
No1 knows the shape of the universe but imagine it is curved like this "U"
To get from one end of the U to the other you would have to travel a long distance. Now imagine a horizontal line connecting the two ends of the U. This is analogous to a wormhole. Its sort of thought as a possibility that may allow of intersteller travel but its really all speculation at this point.

Unless i misunderstood you again and your actually referring to parallel universes? I believe thats more related to string theory (which I dont know anything about)


A few kool thoughts if this hasnt crossed your mind yet:
- everytime you look at a star your are really looking back in time, because it takes millions of years for light from those stars to reach us. A star may be exploding right now but we wouldnt see it till millions of years have passed

kool thought 2:
- all the elements heavier than iron can only be made during a supernova blast (need a lot of force to squish atoms together). So really, we were all born from a super nova blast!

When I was a kid I've always been fascinated by the stars just because they looked awesome, but now that I've started to ask questions its gotten all the more beautiful.

I could think about the whole time concept for hours. Thanks a lot Einstein (shaking fist at air).

 

[MB333999]

I could think about the whole time concept for hours. Thanks a lot Einstein (shaking fist at air).

hahaha my bad, I need to get back to studying for my path and cell phys finals on sat so i wont throw anything else at you...for now.

 

[ezsanche]

If there are other life forms somewhere else in the universe it would be interesting to see whether the chemical composition of life found on earth is the same as the one that is found on alien planets or whether evolution has selected a new set of chemicals to create alien life.