Trillions of Earths

[astroron (Ron)]

I am surprised that his thread has gone one hundred posts
with some very interesting replies
Here's to another hundred

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by astroron

I am surprised that his thread has gone one hundred posts
with some very interesting replies
Here's to another hundred

Or here's to another thread lock !



Happy New Year to you Ron, … Stuart & everyone !!

Cheers

[snas (Stuart)]

[QUOTE]It may never be empirically possible for any physical particle of mass, to travel at the speeds necessary, in order to bridge the awesome distances involved in interplanetary travel. This is likely to upset the 'dreamer' set, (not that I don't include myself in this category, also)./QUOTE]

Craig,

Phil Plait, in the same chapter that I mentioned yesterday, talks of a continual acceleration system like an ion drive which he seems to feel is within our grasp, not necessarily in our lifetime but not far away; the major hurdle being political will. He feels that using something like this can get us to every "habitable" planet within a relatively short space of time. By using a system of small probes dropped from the initial vehicle onto a suitable (mineral content wise) planet, these probes would then mine the metals from the planet and replicate the original spacecraft (See: Replicators on Stargate ). If it took 100 years from launch of any one probe to launch of offspring probe from the next planet, in 3000 years there are more than 1 billion (2^30) copies of our original probe exploring the Milky Way. Of course, the replicator part of the technology required would seem to be a fair bit further away than building an ion drive system.

Hopefully though, time is on our side. We have only been here for 200 000 years. Dinosaurs hung on for almost 200 000 000 years. So even if we only have a million years left to our reign on Earth, there's plenty of time to work stuff like this out.

I have to quote one of his footnotes from this chapter.
"Despite a zillion blurry photos, obvious fakes and shaky video, there has not been a single, unequivocal piece of evidence that we have been visited by aliens ever. Deal with it.

Stuart

[renormalised (Carl)]

Nope...I contend that there are trillions of the little (and big) creepy crawlies out there and that we hardly ever see them because who would want to come visit this mob of knuckle draggers anyway!!!!

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by Suzy

How about those Ravens though - their very smart . I watched a doco on the study of them once, and it showed them using a busy road to drop big nuts from a set of traffic lights. They waited for the cars to crush them, and then when the red light came up for people to cross, only then would the crows collect the nuts. Also, in a more detailed lab study, it showed how Ravens would break and bend sticks to get food out of boxes.

Suzy, some new evidence to support your post

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth...00/9353588.stm
Crows are p[roving cleverer than we thought
Cheers

[Nortilus (Josh)]

To be able to live forever or at least longer than the average human lifespan. Maybe 2000 years old. To see what the human species will achieve and what we will know. To think that when I was 8 years old and watched Beyond 2000 on TV thinking “wow, the year 2000 is going to be amazing filled with robots and flying cars”. 10 years later when the year 2000 came around, the progression of such things, although had advanced, still didn’t live up to my 8 year old minds expectations. The year 4011, which will be 2000 years from now, is maybe where we should be letting our minds wander too. What will we have achieved in this time, and will it live up to our current expectations. They will if we put our minds to it but only if we overcome our shortcomings.

I agree with some of what has been said and disagree with some of what has been said. People have their own opinions and have the right to their own opinions. But ultimately fact is what is right. Can we really class ourselves as intelligent? Do we even have that right? Yes we can build things and send probes into space and ponder the wonders of the universe, but can that really be passed off as intelligence. Maybe some of the things stated in the Fermi paradox are right, would a truly intelligent species that evolved on a planet going around a distant start, that has developed intergalactic / extragalactic travel really want to stop here and say hi, at this point in our own development. I would honestly say no. We are still the only creatures on this planet that kill each other for belief in a higher power. A higher power that in my opinion does not exist. And no, I’m not afraid to openly state that. Religion is one of the key elements holding back our progress to true intelligence. The amount of money spent on war for a god of some description is ridiculous, money that could be well spent advancing our civilisation. Yes, I’m aware that a lot of it may also be for the black stuff under the ground and using a religious war as the cover, but why not put a bit more money into alternative power resources that doesn’t use fossil fuels reducing our need for fossil fuels. Greed is another one of those key elements holding us back.

We as people are still looking up and thinking, are we alone in the universe. Yes we are alone, but only because we haven’t conquered “space travel” yet or we are just still to uninviting to the passersby to drop down and say “hey, we worked that out awhile ago, here’s how”. Yes, there is life out there in the universe, be it single celled or highly advanced space travelers, but we will never know this as fact until we overcome our own problems here and truly become intelligent.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

I haven't watched this post for quite some time as it diverted a lot from the original post. I am sort of curious without reading all the post how did it get from trillions of dwarf stars to ravens and typical alien lifeforms that follows most post relating to science. :

[ngcles]

Hi Malcolm & All,

Originally Posted by mswhin63

I haven't watched this post for quite some time as it diverted a lot from the original post. I am sort of curious without reading all the post how did it get from trillions of dwarf stars to ravens and typical alien life forms that follows most post relating to science. :

How it happened was that the original mass-media article concluded that because the inventory of stars in the Universe had tripled, so had the number of Earths. Because the number of "Earths" in the Universe had tripled, the chances for life and intelligent life had also tripled -- and everyone got excited that there would be more people out there to shake hands with. This was done in the title of the article remember: " 'Trillions' of Earths orbit red stars in older galaxies". But it's a good headline -- grabs your attention. Only one problem ...

It is erroneous reasoning because the "new stars" are virtually all very low mass, ultra low metallicity Population II red dwarf stars in elliptical galaxies that are manifestly unlikely to have the building blocks to form rocky, terrestrial-type planets required for advanced life, let alone intelligent life.

It is in fact the point I've been pressing all the way through -- assumptions without evidence or with litte evidence other than a statistical argument. There are in fact a lot more things that go toward making an "Earth" than people usually think of.


Best,

Les D

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

No worries, should have seen that, I was more interested in the extra gravitation within the galaxy extra mass etc etc.

[bartman (Bart)]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

I haven't watched this post for quite some time as it diverted a lot from the original post. I am sort of curious without reading all the post how did it get from trillions of dwarf stars to ravens and typical alien lifeforms that follows most post relating to science. :

Yeah good Question.....

I think the simplist answer to my question ( see post #7 -which was merged with Astroron's) is that even if 'they' have intergalactic space time travel - we are not advanced enough for them to come and say HI. (many references to Star Trek inserted here...)
Great to see so many theories and responses!
Bartman

[Rob_K]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ke...a_release.html

Cheers -

[bartman (Bart)]

Why wont/cant Kepler be aimed or concentrated on Stars that are reasonable close to us?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12333766

If we find a star that is say within 10 ly from us with a possible candidate for a habitable planet, then we could concentrate on sending them a msg and then in my life time ( 20 years from now) would receive a msg back saying all is good see you in a few decades ( assuming they have lightspeed capable ships and friendly).
I would be happy to have lived and died knowing we had ' First Contact'

Bartman

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bartman

I would be happy to have lived and died knowing we had ' First Contact'

So you'll be sad to have lived and died, knowing we had no 'First Contact' ?

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bartman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12333766

Of interest to me is:

Dr Lissauer explained that the find challenges the notion that planets form by coalescing from discs of debris around young stars, bumping into each other violently in the later stages, casting them into irregular elliptical and out-of-plane orbits.

"I come from a planet formation theory perspective, and this has sent me back to the drawing board," he said.

Supports my suspicion that we are limited in our own understanding, by our own miniscule experience of the Solar System, and the physical processes observed here on Earth.

This still does not support the idea that 'life MUST be out there', however, it does support the concept of: 'infinite diversity through infinite combinations'.

If this ever turns out to become an emerging consensus picture, then the view that a specific occurrence of life emerging, actually requires a universe of the size and dimensions of our observable domain, would seem to become even more credible than it presently is.

Cheers

[bartman (Bart)]

Craig;

"Supports my suspicion that we are limited in our own understanding, by our own miniscule experience of the Solar System, and the physical processes observed here on Earth."

Doesn't mean we cant fantasize - read 'make ideas' - that might evolve into real 'things/events'.
Look at Jules Verne and Star Trek (Gene Rodenbury). We dont need to necessarily know all the "physical processes" to make things happen just yet.
Jules Verne ( and others) anticipated that we would make it to the moon.

I am not saying emphatically that there is life out there, but the statement;

"This still does not support the idea that 'life MUST be out there', however, it does support the concept of: 'infinite diversity through infinite combinations'."

in my eyes reads that life IS out there......the infinite diversity and combo bit.

"If this ever turns out to become an emerging consensus picture, then the view that a specific occurrence of life emerging, actually requires a universe of the size and dimensions of our observable domain, would seem to become even more credible than it presently is."

Sorry Craig you got me there..... what the shell does that mean?????
In plain words - I dont understand what that says.
I'm re-reading it over and over again
#####sarcastic joke coming#######
Craig are you a politician?

If that was in bad taste Mods please delete but Craig ...No malice is intended.... I just simply thought it was like a pollies response to a question.......

Please Craig, no offence

yours humbly, Bartman

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by bartman

Apart from the other interesting stuff in that article, I would like to ask....
If our sun is about 4.5 b years old and the stars they are talking about are about twice the age of our star, and 'complex life' has evolved over an extra ~5 b years, then surely we would have heard from them by now?


Wouldn't 5b years be enough time to figure out inter galactic travel? ( through what ever means....)
Sure, there are billions of galaxies and trillions upon trillions of stars out there, but if they have that 5b years on us they would have invented some sort of 'earth like- supporting life- planet radar'?

OK, some facts has shown that life probably never had a chance at starting in those Red Dwarf zones.

But some may ask, wouldn't your statement still ring true for other situations.

No, probably not.
If another species/lifeform had developed 5b years earlier, then they probably had their existance. And their sun supernovaed, or they all died, before our Sun was even a sparkle in Sirius's eye

In other words, they've probably been and gone before we have been.

Where do you think our lifeform (mankind, the animals, etc) will be in another 5b years time?

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bartman

Craig;

Doesn't mean we cant fantasize - read 'make ideas' - that might evolve into real 'things/events'.
Look at Jules Verne and Star Trek (Gene Rodenbury). We dont need to necessarily know all the "physical processes" to make things happen just yet.
Jules Verne ( and others) anticipated that we would make it to the moon.

No worries about fantasizing, Bart ! I'm into dreaming, also.

I'm a big supporter of exploring out there !

Can't see anything wrong with 'havin' a little faith' and making use of that as a basis to explore .. exploring is the only way to find out, after all !!

Originally Posted by bartman

I am not saying emphatically that there is life out there, but the statement;

Ok .. that's cool .. but that's not what it means to me.

Originally Posted by CraigS

"If this ever turns out to become an emerging consensus picture, then the view that a specific occurrence of life emerging, actually requires a universe of the size and dimensions of our observable domain, would seem to become even more credible than it presently is."

Originally Posted by bartman

Sorry Craig you got me there..... what the shell does that mean?????
In plain words - I dont understand what that says.
I'm re-reading it over and over again
#####sarcastic joke coming#######
Craig are you a politician?

If that was in bad taste Mods please delete but Craig ...No malice is intended.... I just simply thought it was like a pollies response to a question.......

Please Craig, no offence

yours humbly, Bartman

No not a pollie .. I'm always seeking new ways to compress the thinking behind the concept, which was outlined way back in this humungous thread (I believe). Apologies if the statement was convoluted.

If life was a 'fluke', then there needs to be a huge number of 'attempts' for it to result in life (as well as beings, like us). Those 'attempts', require an enormous sample space, before 'it works'. We see a huge sample space in our observable universe. Maybe this single instance of life, required everything we see around us in our observable universe, in order for it to exist here.

This concept is just as valid as "there must be life out there because of the numbers". Whichever alternative we choose to believe, is purely by choice (and opinion). Statistics and science cannot 'disprove' one or the other concept.

This all changes immediately however, when a single exo-lifeform instance is discovered … but not until that discovery.

Cheers

[bartman (Bart)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Ok .. that's cool .. but that's not what it means to me.


Cool, I should keep in mind other peoples opinions.


No not a pollie .. I'm always seeking new ways to compress the thinking behind the concept, which was outlined way back in this humungous thread (I believe). Apologies if the statement was convoluted.

No apologies!!!! my mind/level of understanding these/this topic is not as in depth as yours or other members on this forum.
To some the 'convoluted' statement would make sense ( and convoluted would have been a great choice of a word to describe my thoughts!!!!!)


If life was a 'fluke', then there needs to be a huge number of 'attempts' for it to result in life (as well as beings, like us). Those 'attempts', require an enormous sample space, before 'it works'. We see a huge sample space in our observable universe. Maybe this single instance of life, required everything we see around us in our observable universe, in order for it to exist here.

Whoah... didn't think of that...... (no sarc there)

But..... aren't we ( simple minds) still thinking of the universe as an infinite "thing". Therefore the 'huge sample of space' is mute ( correct spelling ?) The attempts would be mute too. Life could possibly not be a fluke cause the sample of space is infinite, attempts would be infinite and we haven't seen our observable universe to its full extent.

This concept is just as valid as "there must be life out there because of the numbers". Whichever alternative we choose to believe, is purely by choice (and opinion). Statistics and science cannot 'disprove' one or the other concept.

I agree, quote from the movie "contact" ( I believe it is a forum members sig)

[Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God]
Palmer Joss: Did you love your father?
Ellie Arroway: What?
Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him?
Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.
Palmer Joss: Prove it.

This all changes immediately however, when a single exo-lifeform instance is discovered … but not until that discovery.

YEP

Cheers

Bartman

[Barrykgerdes]

Before I wrote this I read the original article so that I would not drift too far off the subject with my hyperthetical views. I have no proof of anything I say here. Just a feeling that I have about the "Life, the Universe and everything"

Trillions of Earths

This needs a little more defining. Yes in the known universe there will be trillions of earths and jupiters and asteroids and suns and so on. The research that we are capable of in our near environment has shown that the formation of "solar systems" is common and there are a few now being discovered that have similarities to our own solar system. Of these there will surely be some that can and probably support life as we know it, but I am sure that we in our present stage of development will never see or communicate with them.

Before we can even progress our learning we need to understand infinity. That of course is not possible but we should at least believe that it is infinite. Once this is grasped the theories that have been put forward about the creation of our local universe can be put into a better perspective. The greatest accepted theory is refered to as the big bang. This is only a theory based on statistical information that satisfies most of the laws of physics as we know them. But it always falls over when we try to give it a boundary because we then need to define what was before. There have probably been an infinite number of big bangs.

I accept that the most likely basis of our universe is a big bang. But what does this represent. A creation from a singularity as is said or the more probable action as I see it of matter collapsing into a giant "black hole" that eventually contains so much matter that its core temperature reaches a point where matter can no longer exist as a solid.

This creates a monstrous explosions that releases the matter to coalesce into all the elements and compounds of the universe as we know it. This explosion also creates the building blocks of life (DNA if you like). These building blocks are of course the most interesting because it is from these that we have evolved.

An interesting side point here would be to calculate the eventual size of this "black hole" by a reverse process of adding the mass of the universe we believe was created by this explosion to find the eventual pressure at the core and then the temperature.

Once the building block is placed in the right environment it is able to replicate itself. The simplest of life form blocks that are the most abundant find this environment relatively quickly, but the more complex blocks take a long time to find the right environment.

We believe that our human blocks are the optimum in complexity but like the unstable atomic elements that we have created are there more complex and or unstable blocks that will in the future creat a super being that is capable of the understanding we now lack? Just like the dinosaurs disappeared when their use by date expired human life as we know it may some day give way to a superior life form.

Barry

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bartman

Whoah... didn't think of that...... (no sarc there)

But..... aren't we ( simple minds) still thinking of the universe as an infinite "thing". Therefore the 'huge sample of space' is mute ( correct spelling ?) The attempts would be mute too. Life could possibly not be a fluke cause the sample of space is infinite, attempts would be infinite and we haven't seen our observable universe to its full extent.

The universe could be thought of as infinite.

Our observable universe on the other hand, has boundaries and objects which could be counted (if we could see/infer everything).

Life's occurrence may be, or may not be, a 'fluke'. There is no evidence one way or the other ... which is why I said: "If life was a 'fluke' …"

Cheers