 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Sn00py
|
 |
From New Zealand
Aug 2001
time: 13:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child
This seems a fairly intelligent analysis to me. 
I absolutely believe there is other life in the universe, we would be impossibly freakish if not. Perhaps of every 40 billion planets only one has 'plant-like life', perhaps of every 80 billion worlds bearing plant-like life, only one has 'basic animal-life', perhaps of every 160 billion planets bearing basic animal-life only one has advanced animal life, and of every 320 billion of those, only one has intelligent life, and of every 640 billion of those, only one has technologically advanced life, and of every 1280 billion of them... only one planet is populated by beings that have the slightest interest in space exploration, and has developed radio technology, and has the economy to support space-mission one, and the luck not to have succumbed to some sort of planet-voiding war/apocalypse/crash-back... let alone to have managed to put out enough deep space missions to eventually stumble across us.
In short, I very much doubt we'll ever meet or hear from other intelligent beings in the universe, though I'm sure they exist. We might one day get to meet a Titanian germ or something though... that'll be really exciting!!!! |
1280 billion planets? whats that like? 0.0000001% in the universe?
Just a theory. Planets shift away from the sun, am I right or wrong? If so, surely when a planet shifts from the sun at a certain point, yknow.. the "life orbit", that the planet could become alive?
If not that, then what about the sun. We know the sun grows, so if planets don't shift further from the sun, well the sun will just grow closer to it, pushing the "life zone" into the orbit of an orbiting planet.
Or do planets shift when the sun grows aswell?
Or am I just completely wrong and should not have said anything?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
 |
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DaShi
Space is something. Nothing is the complete absence of something. If you wanted to quantify nothing, you could use this equation:
(G*pi/(R^(12+(c/D))))*0,
where G is the graviational constant, pi is pi, R is the gas constant, c is the speed of light, and D is the dielectric constant of the medium your are measuring nothing. |
I know space is something, isn't quantum-physics basically the study of the void? Don't take things so seriously dude, jeesh... Chill abit.
Which reminds me of a question I wanted to ask sygil-spewing folk like you.
Is Absolute Zero really the coldest cold can be, or is it the point at which all our measuring equipment can no longer measure the low-levels of heat?
And considering an absolute void/vacuum is still bubbling with energy at a 'quantum' level, does that bubbling count as heat even though there's no atoms to jiggle around or release particles and such?
If the bubbling of the void could be described as a form of heat, does that mean a dead-void, with no quantum bubbly-bits whatsoever, or sub-quantum for that matter, absolute nothing nothing, is the coldest cold can be... a kind of-
Cool Space?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
Theoretically it's the coldest cold can be. 'heat' is caused by atoms vibrating and at absolute zero they stop vibrating and have no 'heat' energy. |
It's possible for matter to be "colder" (that is, more heat absorbing) at lower than minus zero...
...but in such a case (never observed) it wouldn't be matter as we know it.
As for this Seti story - I wondered why it flared and died. Would have expected more impact, but that second post kind of explains it.
I doubt aliens will be broadcasting... but I see no harm in checking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
"Radio waves travel so slow and the source is so far away that no communication would be possible. Even if there was an alien civilization there it would take years and years before they'd even hear our response."
May I suggest... a busy signal?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Given a start point of somewhere in the neighborhood of 1021 stars in the universe, there is nothing "obvious" at all that makes life on earth particularly special, let alone a unique occurence in the universe. |
They suggest life might be common - the problem is that to get to intelligent life takes a long period of evolutionary time, and that means you need a planet with conditions favorable to higher life forms over LONG periods of time. Its not enough to count the number of planets that have favorable conditions at any one time (as the Drake equation did) since many of those planets will have unstable conditions, due to the nature of the conditions in their star system, or their portion of the Galaxy. The authors calculate that there are few suitable planets with suitable conditions for long enough, so that there are probably no more than a handful of planets with intelligent life in the milky way galaxy, and POSSIBLY only earth. Of course with numerous galaxies, that still means theres probably intell life out there somewhere, but one or two locations per galaxy is quite different from what Drake, Sagan, et al would expect.
To see their exact calculations youd have to read their book.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I've read it, but the seem to me to start with a goal in mind and then try to justify it.
Earth since the Cambrian has been anything but stable, with very nasty random jolts (that are nevertheless common on an astronomical scale) to rearrange things and start over a bit. Given that were at 125 known extrasolar planets and counting, even with our extremely limited detection methods, I still find their conclusions to be a bit forced. Sagan et al were on the optimistic side, but these guys are orders of magnitude too pessimistic. |
I didnt read the whole thing, but IIRC they discussed the Cambrian extinction in some detail. Their arguments struck me as compelling, though i dont know near enough to comment beyond that.
I WOULD note, of the 125 extrasolar planets found thus far, all but the last 3 or 4 are gaseous giants - of course thats a result of the bias of our planet finding techniques. Of the smaller planets (and theyre still pretty big - Neptune sized or so) none, AFAIK is in a temperature zone suitable for earth like life. No M class planets yet , even in Drake equation terms. And thats NOT taking into account the long term stability factors identified in "Rare earth"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Wasn't there at least one that we could see?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2004 17:44
|