Do you believe the existence of Aliens in other planets?
-
ihoecken wrote:
Who can see 14 billion years distance?
I believe he is referring to the cosmological speed of light issue related to observing across great distances. When we look at the nearest stars only a few light years away, we are looking at the light that left that location a few years earlier so we are in fact observing what has already been. As we observe the billions of light years of the visible universe we are looking farther and farther back in time because it took the light so many years to reach us that the star may not even be there anymore that produced the light that we are observing now. We are looking across 14 billion years as well as 14 billion light years distance even though we are only observing it now. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
I believe he is referring to the cosmological speed of light issue related to observing across great distances.
Yes, I know. It was a little bit sarcastic, sorry. But the point is you may see suns in that distance but no planets, no spaceships, no buildings, no beings. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Maxwell Chen wrote:
Link2006 must be pretty disappointed after having read your reply.
Oh sorry. That wasn't my intention. I call myself honest (I say what I think) my friends call me cynic. I guess they are right. :^) ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
Oh sorry. That wasn't my intention. I call myself honest (I say what I think) my friends call me cynic. I guess they are right.
I didn't find it cynical at all. quite honest. Of course the ice-cream question assumes mammalian life, but hey, cars also references specifics of our bipedal culture, but hey, I wasn't going to nitpick. :) _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
brianwelsch wrote:
Though I suppose it would be nice to know exactly how far away we might potentially need to blow something up.
Well in every thread (most times in the soapbox) there is someone who wants to blow something up, drop bombs or kill others. Sometimes I wonder if the codeproject might change to be the murder- or terroristproject. Normally it's e..... and know it's you. Shame on you! :^) ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
drop bombs or kill others
Not others. Aliens!!! For Pete's sake, man, don't you get it!??! They're not even people! :mad: BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
brianwelsch wrote:
Though I suppose it would be nice to know exactly how far away we might potentially need to blow something up.
And that's what i think it'd end up boiling down to. If we judged them to be at least as technologically advanced as we are, then we'd need to come up with some sort of survelance program, and plan for ultra-long-range warfare, just in case. ...And if we judged them to be less advanced, we'd kindly enslave them and bring them up to date. :rolleyes:
----
Shog9 wrote:
we'd kindly enslave them and bring them up to date
Well, it's the right thing to do. ;) BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
It can do whatever a computer can.
Maybe so, but the simplest living thing displays far more subtlety and complexity than a computer so I maintain that the game of life is nowhere near complex enough to produce life. I agree 100% that complex systems can be built up from simple components, but life doesn't really use binary, it uses a wide range of complex and subtle interactions that require a wide range of chemicals, and the wider the range of available chemicals, the more opportunities there will be to make successful life. Life would not arise on a planet where there was only Silicon and Arsenic, however they were combined. Steve.
True, but the simplest computer displays far more complexity then an abacus. I am not arguing that a silicon chip is more complex then a frog. Again, when you speak of life you’re speaking about life on earth. This brings me back to my original point: alien like may be, well, alien! You say, "But life doesn't really use binary". I'm not sure about that. Life will, I presume, use what's available. For arguments sake let's assume carbon based life is the most flexible and, again for arguments sake, silicon based life is possible but inferior - One thing is for sure, the silicon based life can't be out competed by carbon based life on a world without carbon. Steve
-
Nitron wrote:
ad black holes, well at least the !div/0 errors do anyway...
I believe that a black hole would be a div/infinite error rather than a divide by 0. divide by 0 might be found in quasars or dark-matter, but since we don't fully understand either. :) _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
ihoecken wrote:
drop bombs or kill others
Not others. Aliens!!! For Pete's sake, man, don't you get it!??! They're not even people! :mad: BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wrightbrianwelsch wrote:
Not others. Aliens!!! For Pete's sake, man, don't you get it!??! They're not even people!
Oh sorry. Then it's something totally different. Give me an abomb and I will drop it, if I see the next ufo. :cool: ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
I believe that God made the earth and us. But I don't know why he shouldn't create more "intelligent" beings (if you like to call humans in that way). The second point is that God made everything in the universe, but humans wrote the bible. So we should not think that every word you read there should be taken word-for-word. The bible was translated many times and there are many difference between the first transcription and the translations we read in our days. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
I don't limit God in what he can do, but I do limit myself to what He said He did. Humans wrote the Bible through divine inspiration, i.e. they where simply God's instrument. Also, Jesus refered to the creation account given in Genesis...and He should know! (Mark 10:6, John 5:45-47, for example) If you read Exodus, you will wee several places where God actually wrote for Himself. For example (Exodus 34:1), the Law and the 10 Commandments where written by God in stone. By the way, He also wrote on those stone tablets (Exodus 20:11) that He created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal days, not billions of years. Barry Etter
-
brianwelsch wrote:
Not others. Aliens!!! For Pete's sake, man, don't you get it!??! They're not even people!
Oh sorry. Then it's something totally different. Give me an abomb and I will drop it, if I see the next ufo. :cool: ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
Now you've got it. ;) BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
True, but the simplest computer displays far more complexity then an abacus. I am not arguing that a silicon chip is more complex then a frog. Again, when you speak of life you’re speaking about life on earth. This brings me back to my original point: alien like may be, well, alien! You say, "But life doesn't really use binary". I'm not sure about that. Life will, I presume, use what's available. For arguments sake let's assume carbon based life is the most flexible and, again for arguments sake, silicon based life is possible but inferior - One thing is for sure, the silicon based life can't be out competed by carbon based life on a world without carbon. Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
One thing is for sure, the silicon based life can't be out competed by carbon based life on a world without carbon.
True! I can't envisage how any kind of life could work in binary. I guess we'll never know though until we meet some form of alien life, capture it, cut it open and subject it to a barrage of intrusive tests. :-D Steve.
-
but why you are disappointed ? Hope,Hope is very good in life
WhiteSky wrote:
Hope,Hope is very good in life
Hope, depending on your definition... the angel of mercy released by pandora, or the most dangerous of all plagues of mankind. Hope without effort, or hope without substance is "vain hope," the greatest of human miseries. Most people confuse hope with positive thinking, hope is not and has little to do with positive thinking. Positive thinking could be viewed simply as a more realistic notion that if you keep working at something you will eventually succeed, so you plod on through rough times knowing you will work your way to better times. Hope is blind, eventually good will come because it somehow "must," therefore I need do nothing, I will be rich without work, I will be happy without effort. Thus comes the usual idea that hope is not the greatest virtue, but a very serious problem. "Hope is considered an evil in Pandora's story because according to Hesiod it implies the control of the future, and since no one can control the future, to have hope is to be deluded. Other people think that Hope being left in the box symbolizes Hope often being humanity's only comfort." So it all comes down to your interpretation of what hope is and whether vain hope should be separated from positive thinking. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
One thing is for sure, the silicon based life can't be out competed by carbon based life on a world without carbon.
True! I can't envisage how any kind of life could work in binary. I guess we'll never know though until we meet some form of alien life, capture it, cut it open and subject it to a barrage of intrusive tests. :-D Steve.
viaduct wrote:
I guess we'll never know though until we meet some form of alien life, capture it, cut it open and subject it to a barrage of intrusive tests.
I look forward to it ;-) Steve
-
I don't limit God in what he can do, but I do limit myself to what He said He did. Humans wrote the Bible through divine inspiration, i.e. they where simply God's instrument. Also, Jesus refered to the creation account given in Genesis...and He should know! (Mark 10:6, John 5:45-47, for example) If you read Exodus, you will wee several places where God actually wrote for Himself. For example (Exodus 34:1), the Law and the 10 Commandments where written by God in stone. By the way, He also wrote on those stone tablets (Exodus 20:11) that He created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal days, not billions of years. Barry Etter
Barry Etter wrote:
If you read Exodus, you will wee several places where God actually wrote for Himself.
Well I read the bible. But I believe in his message, not the word written by humans.
Barry Etter wrote:
He created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal days, not billions of years.
True, but he didn't said in what type of days - the day in heaven might last millions of years on earth. But we shouldn't dispute each others beliefs. I won't mind if you believe every word written in the translated bible. I don't believe it and we won't be able to change each other. No harm meant. :rose: ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
WhiteSky wrote:
Hope,Hope is very good in life
Hope, depending on your definition... the angel of mercy released by pandora, or the most dangerous of all plagues of mankind. Hope without effort, or hope without substance is "vain hope," the greatest of human miseries. Most people confuse hope with positive thinking, hope is not and has little to do with positive thinking. Positive thinking could be viewed simply as a more realistic notion that if you keep working at something you will eventually succeed, so you plod on through rough times knowing you will work your way to better times. Hope is blind, eventually good will come because it somehow "must," therefore I need do nothing, I will be rich without work, I will be happy without effort. Thus comes the usual idea that hope is not the greatest virtue, but a very serious problem. "Hope is considered an evil in Pandora's story because according to Hesiod it implies the control of the future, and since no one can control the future, to have hope is to be deluded. Other people think that Hope being left in the box symbolizes Hope often being humanity's only comfort." So it all comes down to your interpretation of what hope is and whether vain hope should be separated from positive thinking. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Hope is considered an evil in Pandora's story because according to Hesiod it implies the control of the future, and since no one can control the future, to have hope is to be deluded. Other people think that Hope being left in the box symbolizes Hope often being humanity's only comfort
Hope was something good in Pandora's story: "I am Hope,said the fairy, Pandora due to your curiosity you have let out all possible troubles for mankind. There will be no peace of mind for humans from this day forth. There will be greed and jealousy,insanity and lust, there will be plague and hatred,men will fight each other,wives will be set against husbands,sons against fathers,brother againgst brother,there will be famine,pestilence,vice and destruction.The world will know great sorrow............... Hearing this Pandora started to cry and sob terribly, for the great harm she had brought upon herself and her fellow humans."Do not cry so much Pandora,said the fairy, "yes it is true that you have unleashed all manner of afflictions upon the world , but you have also let me out. I will always be there to bring hope to humans, whenever they are in trouble. I will always be there as the promise of Hope!. (Found on http://rrr.kimcm.dk/Notes/Pandora.html[^]) (Another link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora_(mythology)[^]) Well I think you are not totally wrong, but in Pandora's story I see hope as something good. :rolleyes: ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
I believe he is referring to the cosmological speed of light issue related to observing across great distances.
Yes, I know. It was a little bit sarcastic, sorry. But the point is you may see suns in that distance but no planets, no spaceships, no buildings, no beings. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
But the point is you may see suns in that distance but no planets, no spaceships, no buildings, no beings.
Actually this is a misnomer, and comes down to what you consider "see". The human eye perceives extremely little of the energy spectrum, if you even widen the energy spectrum from the deepest infrared of biological life to highest ultraviolet perception of biological life, human beings are more blind than bats. "See" being relative to "perceive" measure or record. That we have done quite a few times over in the last decade. Seeing gas giants are easy, as they pass in front of a star they orbit the solar wind burns off the atmosphere. This is easily detected by a spike on the rotational frequency of the orbital body. This is the easiest way to "see" a planet and has been done many times over, a slight variation on the first method of seeing planets. Another way to "see" a planet is to look for a shadow, a simple change in the spectrum, not looking for atmospheric changes of molecular burn, but rather reductions in intensity due to eclipses. These are minute changes even for something as large as a gas-giant, and pretty much only works for gas-giants, any other object would require such finely tuned instruments that they could never be measured from earth. This was, however, the first method used to see other planets. The last method is through simple physics. Gravity is always present as long as there is mass. You can therefore measure the existance of planets by the subtle variations of the sun and/or its other bodies. This was how we know of a 10th planet prior to its discovery and the existance of some moons of planetary bodies before they were spectrumatically "seen". They were measured via subtle variations in orbital mechanics, and the only assumption is that inertia is true which is a fairly mild assumption. We have seen many planets, though do not have the ability to magnify and collect light to any detail to ever see a building or space-ship. Given the relative size, you cannot even see a satellite from the moon, even should we achieve magnification to narrowly view planets in our nearly blind perceptions, we would see nothing because we as human beings can see very little. As far as I know only one other "earth-like" planet has been discovered and its sun produces exceedingly large amounts of radiation. The assumption is that life would be impossible because human life could never live on such a planet. _____
-
ihoecken wrote:
But the point is you may see suns in that distance but no planets, no spaceships, no buildings, no beings.
Actually this is a misnomer, and comes down to what you consider "see". The human eye perceives extremely little of the energy spectrum, if you even widen the energy spectrum from the deepest infrared of biological life to highest ultraviolet perception of biological life, human beings are more blind than bats. "See" being relative to "perceive" measure or record. That we have done quite a few times over in the last decade. Seeing gas giants are easy, as they pass in front of a star they orbit the solar wind burns off the atmosphere. This is easily detected by a spike on the rotational frequency of the orbital body. This is the easiest way to "see" a planet and has been done many times over, a slight variation on the first method of seeing planets. Another way to "see" a planet is to look for a shadow, a simple change in the spectrum, not looking for atmospheric changes of molecular burn, but rather reductions in intensity due to eclipses. These are minute changes even for something as large as a gas-giant, and pretty much only works for gas-giants, any other object would require such finely tuned instruments that they could never be measured from earth. This was, however, the first method used to see other planets. The last method is through simple physics. Gravity is always present as long as there is mass. You can therefore measure the existance of planets by the subtle variations of the sun and/or its other bodies. This was how we know of a 10th planet prior to its discovery and the existance of some moons of planetary bodies before they were spectrumatically "seen". They were measured via subtle variations in orbital mechanics, and the only assumption is that inertia is true which is a fairly mild assumption. We have seen many planets, though do not have the ability to magnify and collect light to any detail to ever see a building or space-ship. Given the relative size, you cannot even see a satellite from the moon, even should we achieve magnification to narrowly view planets in our nearly blind perceptions, we would see nothing because we as human beings can see very little. As far as I know only one other "earth-like" planet has been discovered and its sun produces exceedingly large amounts of radiation. The assumption is that life would be impossible because human life could never live on such a planet. _____
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Actually this is a misnomer, and comes down to what you consider "see". The human eye perceives extremely little of the energy spectrum, if you even widen the energy spectrum from the deepest infrared of biological life to highest ultraviolet perception of biological life, human beings are more blind than bats. "See" being relative to "perceive" measure or record. That we have done quite a few times over in the last decade. Seeing gas giants are easy, as they pass in front of a star they orbit the solar wind burns off the atmosphere. This is easily detected by a spike on the rotational frequency of the orbital body.
That I said, take a look at my post: http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?forumid=1159&fr=76&select=1478433#xx1478433xx[^]
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
As far as I know only one other "earth-like" planet has been discovered and its sun produces exceedingly large amounts of radiation. The assumption is that life would be impossible because human life could never live on such a planet.
Yes, but that doesn't says that high developed life is impossible. It would be different of course, but we don't know anything about the universe. So if someones says that there is no life at all, it's not profound at all. Of course you can't say that there is a developed life anyway, but you can think of it (or not - just how you like :wtf:). Now I'm confused. That's your fault! ;) ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
I'm not sure if the cosmologists actually believe the universe is infinite - But I'm no expert. If the universe expanded from a singularity (which is a point) and has only been expanding for a finite period of time it hasn't had time to reach infinite size: after all, it would take an infinite amount of time to reach that size. Again however, I'm no expert in these matters. Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
universe is infinite
Stephen, if you believe everything has an "other side" then you have no other choice other than to believe it's infinite. you say upto this is our universe. And hence it'd be immediately followed by "what's on the other side??".. and like this even the question goes infinite. The possible ambiguity may be like "If the universe keeps expanding?, moving?..ect" but when you talk about universe we certainly get confused about the "superset".. where is the universe is a simple question to narrate it. Universe has been the final word to mean the vastness, if Some other word is there, the same can be replaced with "universe" and the argument can be carried on with in the same fashion. :-D.. But I may be totally wrong too stephen hawkins Hewitt. ;)
--[V]--
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Hope is considered an evil in Pandora's story because according to Hesiod it implies the control of the future, and since no one can control the future, to have hope is to be deluded. Other people think that Hope being left in the box symbolizes Hope often being humanity's only comfort
Hope was something good in Pandora's story: "I am Hope,said the fairy, Pandora due to your curiosity you have let out all possible troubles for mankind. There will be no peace of mind for humans from this day forth. There will be greed and jealousy,insanity and lust, there will be plague and hatred,men will fight each other,wives will be set against husbands,sons against fathers,brother againgst brother,there will be famine,pestilence,vice and destruction.The world will know great sorrow............... Hearing this Pandora started to cry and sob terribly, for the great harm she had brought upon herself and her fellow humans."Do not cry so much Pandora,said the fairy, "yes it is true that you have unleashed all manner of afflictions upon the world , but you have also let me out. I will always be there to bring hope to humans, whenever they are in trouble. I will always be there as the promise of Hope!. (Found on http://rrr.kimcm.dk/Notes/Pandora.html[^]) (Another link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora_(mythology)[^]) Well I think you are not totally wrong, but in Pandora's story I see hope as something good. :rolleyes: ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
I will always be there to bring hope to humans, whenever they are in trouble. I will always be there as the promise of Hope!
ahhh... vain hope... the unfulfilled "promise" of hope. ;) it's always open to interpretation. ;P _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) -- modified at 20:10 Monday 8th May, 2006
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Actually this is a misnomer, and comes down to what you consider "see". The human eye perceives extremely little of the energy spectrum, if you even widen the energy spectrum from the deepest infrared of biological life to highest ultraviolet perception of biological life, human beings are more blind than bats. "See" being relative to "perceive" measure or record. That we have done quite a few times over in the last decade. Seeing gas giants are easy, as they pass in front of a star they orbit the solar wind burns off the atmosphere. This is easily detected by a spike on the rotational frequency of the orbital body.
That I said, take a look at my post: http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?forumid=1159&fr=76&select=1478433#xx1478433xx[^]
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
As far as I know only one other "earth-like" planet has been discovered and its sun produces exceedingly large amounts of radiation. The assumption is that life would be impossible because human life could never live on such a planet.
Yes, but that doesn't says that high developed life is impossible. It would be different of course, but we don't know anything about the universe. So if someones says that there is no life at all, it's not profound at all. Of course you can't say that there is a developed life anyway, but you can think of it (or not - just how you like :wtf:). Now I'm confused. That's your fault! ;) ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
Of course you can't say that there is a developed life anyway, but you can think of it (or not - just how you like ). Now I'm confused. That's your fault!
I never said there was, or was not life. I addressed only the assumptions involved. There is the assumption that someday we can build a device so sensitive as to see a structure from another civilation. You might as well assume a fire-ant in New Mexico could be given binoculars powerful enough to see an army ant in Africa. :) There is the assumption that travel will be possible for either side to eventually stumble across each other, which also assumes proximity close enough to make even some unknown advanced method of travel possible (remember, warp drive won't take you out of the solar system and even it is fictional, so assuming we find such a cheat, you're still only capable of visiting a microcosm compared to the vastness of the universe). There are a lot of assumptions, assumptions that life must be carbon based, and the rules by which carbon based life will exist. Most of those rules have all been shot to pieces since the discover of extremophile organisms which has resulted in the expansions of animal kingdoms to cover the now wide variety of completely alien life that exists within one microcosm known as earth. :) Most people are unaware of just how many assumptions that "were" well known have been shot down due to the discovery of extremophilic life. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
I believe that a black hole would be a div/infinite error rather than a divide by 0.
div/infinity is the algorithm into which the universe must be expanding... :-D ~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
startNitron wrote:
div/infinity is the algorithm into which the universe must be expanding...
no... since it started with a singularity and the big bang... that is div/0. ;P ;P :laugh: _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)