"it is likely that we will find habitable planets circling small stars"

[RandomGuy]

Astronomers discover clutch of 'super-Earths'

1 hour, 20 minutes ago



NANTES, France (AFP) - European scientists on Monday said they had located five 'super-Earths', each of them between four and 30 times bigger than our planet, in a trio of distant solar systems.

The discovery suggests that at least one third of stars similar to our own Sun host these difficult-to-detect celestial bodies, multiplying previous estimates by five.

It also brings astronomers closer to finding planets outside our solar system, called exoplanets, that could potentially duplicate the conditions that gave rise to life on Earth.

"In a year or two, it is likely that we will find habitable planets circling small stars" such as the Sun, said Setphane Udry, a researcher at Switzerland's Geneva Observatory and a member of the team that made the discovery.

Three of the five 'super-Earths' -- so-called because they are several times the mass of our own planet -- orbit a star known as HD 40307 some 42 lights away, the scientists reported.

One light-year is roughly equivalent to 9.5 trillion kilometres (6 trillion miles).

They have 4.2, 6.7, and 9.4 times the mass of the Earth, and orbit their sun in periods of 4.3, 9.6, and 20.4 days, respectively.

The rapid orbits make the super-Earths easier to detect -- but it also means that they are probably gaseous balls of fire inhospitable to life as we know it.

The first exoplanet was detected in 1995, and less than 280 had been catalogued before today's findings, unveiled at an astronomy conference in Nantes, France.

But a new generation of powerful instruments is almost certain to expand the list rapidly, say scientists.

The recent batch of exoplanets were all spotted with the High-Accuracy Radial-Velocity Planet Searcher (HARPS), a 3.6-metre telescope and spectograph perched atop La Scilla mountain at the southern edge of Chile's Atacama Desert.

HARPS, sometimes called the "planet hunter", has uncovered 45 super-Earths since it began operation in 2004.

"Clearly these planets are only the tip of the iceberg," says Mayor. "The analysis of all the stars studied with HARPS shows that about one third of solar-like stars have either super-Earth or Neptune-like planets with orbital periods shorter than 50 days."

Earth orbits the Sun once every 365 days.

Distant planets, even big ones, are too small to be directly observed, and can only be detected by measuring their impact on the movement of the stars they orbit.

"The mass of the smallest planets is 100,000 times smaller than that of the star, and only the high sensitivity of HARPS made it possible to detect them," says co-author Francois Bouchy, from the Astrophysics Institute of Paris.

All of the exoplanets unveiled Monday have masses four to 30 times greater than Earth's, and orbits at least seven times shorter. The further from the star, the harder they are to observe.

At the same conference, astronomers announced the discovery of two other planetary systems, also with the HARPS spectrograph.

In one, a super-Earth orbits the star HD 181433 every 9.5 days. The same star also hosts a huge, Jupiter-like planet that circles every three years.

The second system contains a fiery planet 22 times the size of Earth that circumnavigates its sun every four days :wow, and a Saturn-like sphere with a three-year orbit.

"It is probable that there are many other planets present -- not only super-Earths, but Earth like-planets that we cannot yet detect," said Stephane Udry, also a researcher at the Geneva Observatory.

Planets are formed from a disc of gas and dusty debris left over from the creation of a star. Just how long this process takes is still a matter of debate.

Earth is believed to be about 4.5 billion years old, and the Sun about 100 million years older.

[ATRAIN]

sweet

[BacktoBasics]

Won't be long before Merica has to liberate other planets.

[Richard Cranium]

I hope they have oil.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I hope they have oil.

Planning an invasion, are we?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

On a serious note, to talk about planets on different solar systems is to talk about something the human race is probably never going to see. There are so many obstacles to space travel of that magnitude, that theoretically it would take a ship of unimaginable proportions and several generations to be able to reach those solar systems. Pipe dreams. Lets take care of the earth we have, 'cause its the only one we'll ever get to see.

[AlamoSpursFan]

Won't be long before Merica has to liberate other planets.

I don't know why but when I first read this I thought that said Mencia.

And I thought "Did he steal all the jokes here?"

:lol

[ATRAIN]

Won't be long before Merica has to liberate other planets.

If we do migrate to other planets us non richers wont be able to go :(.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

If we do migrate to other planets us non richers wont be able to go :(.

Fuck it! stowaway!!

[Spock]

It is logical that other life forms exist in the universe.

[ATRAIN]

Fuck it! stowaway!!

we CAN HIDE in the Horse area!! After all why leave the horses, the alien message boards need to be able to see them being cute and having a water fight.

[RandomGuy]

If we do migrate to other planets us non richers wont be able to go :(.

I call dibs on the shit they leave behind...

I wants me a nice yacht to live on.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I call dibs on the shit they leave behind...

I wants me a nice yacht to live on.


What if they keep their shit for when they come back to visit? :depressed

[ATRAIN]

I call dibs on the shit they leave behind...

I wants me a nice yacht to live on.

What if they take their shit with them :( I mean if the horses are going whats to stop them from taking their cars and shit.

[Don Quixote]

The richers can leave. It'll take em at least 10,000 years to get where they're going, with current technology. (I just took a stab at it -- I don't have a clue how many years it would take.) And the odds that this alleged M-class planet actually (a) has life, (b) has some form of civilization, (c) isn't either still in its "primordial soup" stage or extinct by 3 billion years, or (d) won't vaporize us and take over our planet if we do make contact ... are rather slim.

And if they're there, how come we haven't heard from them? Can't they send a signal? They're probably not even worth conquering.

[Avitus1]

Until we know how to program this into an FTL Drive this knowledge is mostly useless.

[Anti.Hero]

It's only a matter of time. I doubt Earth mankind will still be around though.

[MannyIsGod]

On a serious note, to talk about planets on different solar systems is to talk about something the human race is probably never going to see. There are so many obstacles to space travel of that magnitude, that theoretically it would take a ship of unimaginable proportions and several generations to be able to reach those solar systems. Pipe dreams. Lets take care of the earth we have, 'cause its the only one we'll ever get to see.

You can't make posts like this under any type of authority. Its pretty much impossible to be able say what the Human Race will be doing in 50 years much less EVER.

[MannyIsGod]

The richers can leave. It'll take em at least 10,000 years to get where they're going, with current technology. (I just took a stab at it -- I don't have a clue how many years it would take.) And the odds that this alleged M-class planet actually (a) has life, (b) has some form of civilization, (c) isn't either still in its "primordial soup" stage or extinct by 3 billion years, or (d) won't vaporize us and take over our planet if we do make contact ... are rather slim.

And if they're there, how come we haven't heard from them? Can't they send a signal? They're probably not even worth conquering.

:lol @ "m class planet"

I'd call you a nerd but the fact that I know the reference makes me a nerd too.

The rest of your post is rubbish though. Just like I said with Manu, you guys are thinking in our current paradigm and trying to figure out how things would work in an entirely different one. Doesn't work that way.

[Slydragon]

And if they're there, how come we haven't heard from them? Can't they send a signal? They're probably not even worth conquering.

Why does everyone think that if there is life on another planet they will be way more advance than us. I think there is life somewhere out there not necessarily in human form but something small.

[TDMVPDPOY]

they could come and invade us, there is nothing left on earth, we basically used much up of everything of the earths natural resources in the last 100 years....yeh thats right all it took was 100yrs.

[Anti.Hero]

they could come and invade us, there is nothing left on earth, we basically used much up of everything of the earths natural resources in the last 100 years....yeh thats right all it took was 100yrs.

Nothing left on Earth?

Are you an idiot?

[RandomGuy]

they could come and invade us, there is nothing left on earth, we basically used much up of everything of the earths natural resources in the last 100 years....yeh thats right all it took was 100yrs.

You give us too much credit. We have done a lot of damage, but are a looong way from "using up" the planet.

[Don Quixote]

:lol @ "m class planet"

I'd call you a nerd but the fact that I know the reference makes me a nerd too.

The rest of your post is rubbish though. Just like I said with Manu, you guys are thinking in our current paradigm and trying to figure out how things would work in an entirely different one. Doesn't work that way.

Glad you got the reference. Yes, you are a dork.

And I am more than open to "new and exciting paradigms." If you have any logical reasons how it would be desirable or even possible to make contact with any civilized race out there, I'm all ears.

[ATRAIN]

Why does everyone think that if there is life on another planet they will be way more advance than us. I think there is life somewhere out there not necessarily in human form but something small.

I think there is both less advanced and more advanced as well. For all we know they have been watching and observing. We really don't know.

[Don Quixote]

Space is friggin big. And the universe is really old. Given the odds of life originating through random chance to begin with (rather long), what are the odds of it happening twice, almost next to each other in the universe, at almost the same blip in cosmic time? And if it were to happen ... what are the odds of both civilizations being friendly? Much more likely that one would vaporize the other. :lol

[ATRAIN]

Space is friggin big. And the universe is really old. Given the odds of life originating through random chance to begin with (rather long), what are the odds of it happening twice, almost next to each other in the universe, at almost the same blip in cosmic time? And if it were to happen ... what are the odds of both civilizations being friendly? Much more likely that one would vaporize the other. :lol


I thought our universe was young compared to other universes?

[Don Quixote]

Other universes -- purely theoretical. We don't know if they exist, there doesn't seem to be much evidence for them. If there is, I'm not sure how we'd ever know it. For now, these other universes exist only in the world of theoretical physics and math.

Point is, the universe that we ARE in, and these other planets ARE in, is really big and really old. Not infinitely big and old, but pretty stinking big and old (like your mother).

And the odds against us finding, making contact with, and actually meeting with other civilizations are so astronomically small as to be 0. If we find something like a virus in outer space, I think we should be thrilled and call it a day.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm confident there is life out there somewhere.

[Don Quixote]

Ladies and gentlemen! We have a time and space traveler amongst us! Give it up for JoeBurrito -- a man who has crossed both thresholds and returned alive. He has told us that, based on his travels, that he is confident that there is life out there.

Do tell, Mr. Burrito -- why such confidence? And if there truly IS more life out there, how will we ever know about it?

[thispego]

Other universes -- purely theoretical. We don't know if they exist, there doesn't seem to be much evidence for them. If there is, I'm not sure how we'd ever know it. For now, these other universes exist only in the world of theoretical physics and math.

Point is, the universe that we ARE in, and these other planets ARE in, is really big and really old. Not infinitely big and old, but pretty stinking big and old (like your mother).

And the odds against us finding, making contact with, and actually meeting with other civilizations are so astronomically small as to be 0. If we find something like a virus in outer space, I think we should be thrilled and call it a day.

do we have to find and make contact with them for it to count? Pretty sure ufo's have been "finding" earth for decades now. maybe one day they'll stick around long enough to actually make contact, but yeah... pretty sure they'll come here before we go there ...if anything at all :wakeup

[clambake]

who would be able to tell. aren't they all required to have been created in God's image?

[Don Quixote]

Maybe -- the evidence for aliens visiting us is pretty scant. I know there's stories and some unexplained phenomena, but it would be fallacious to conclude that aliens have necessarily landed, based on these few reports.

And, they still face the same obstacles seeing and finding us, as we do them. And, who says they're friendly?

[stretch]

thispego is a nerd

on the moon nerds have their pants pulled down and are spanked with moon rocks

[thispego]

Maybe -- the evidence for aliens visiting us is pretty scant. I know there's stories and some unexplained phenomena, but it would be fallacious to conclude that aliens have necessarily landed, based on these few reports.

And, they still face the same obstacles seeing and finding us, as we do them. And, who says they're friendly?

if they are already visitng us then they have overcome the obstacles that prevent us from doing the same. I believe in ufo's and I believe that one really crashed in area 51. I don't know what is so hard to believe for people

[thispego]

thispego is a nerd

on the moon nerds have their pants pulled down and are spanked with moon rocks

youd like that wouldnt you?

[Don Quixote]

if they are already visitng us then they have overcome the obstacles that prevent us from doing the same. I believe in ufo's and I believe that one really crashed in area 51. I don't know what is so hard to believe for people

Well, these are pretty freaking astronomical-sized (literally!) obstacles to overcome. Roughly speaking, it would be like finding one particular cell in one organism that once lived at one time on this entire planet. I don't know if any amount of technological know-how or innovation would be able to solve it, because we're dealing with a universe that is bigger than our wildest dreams. Not to mention the time travel it would necessarily involve.

And even if we do find someone, we're far more likely to come across their ruins (i.e., they went extinct aeons ago) or their pre-Space Age stage (i.e. they are primitive, or not even more than germs or fish, if macroevolution is true).

[Don Quixote]

Area 51, um okay. Sure :lol

[stretch]

youd like that wouldnt you?

i was quoting ATHF

smell my balls

[JoeChalupa]

Ladies and gentlemen! We have a time and space traveler amongst us! Give it up for JoeBurrito -- a man who has crossed both thresholds and returned alive. He has told us that, based on his travels, that he is confident that there is life out there.

Do tell, Mr. Burrito -- why such confidence? And if there truly IS more life out there, how will we ever know about it?

I said I was confident I didn't say I was correct. But there is also no proof that life doesn't exist somewhere else in the universe?
Or have you time traveled and know that for a fact Mr. Knowitall?

Tell me Don Quichote.

[Don Quixote]

I haven't travelled space and time doofis :lol I'm not the one saying there is or isn't life out there. I'm only saying that if there is, we'll never know it or find them.

And what makes you so confident that there is? How could you possibly be confident?

[thispego]

i was quoting ATHF

smell my balls

mooninites were funny for like 2 episodes

[Extra Stout]

If we find life on other planets they'll probably all be Jazz fans.

[thispego]

Area 51, um okay. Sure :lol

you laugh at the possibility of there being a ufo crash at area 51? well then you are a master of skepticism. I suppose every single ufo sighting in history was weather baloons or light refraction or ball lightening too, huh?. :lol
If you ever saw an actual ufo you might think differently

[Don Quixote]

I'm not saying nothing happened. You're into Area 51. That's fine.

[BacktoBasics]

The crash was allegedly at Roswell NM not area 51. 51 has some negative connotations from people because it was widely speculated that the crash wreckage and bodies ended up in hanger 18 located at area 51 from both the Brownsville crash and the NM one.

Area 51 is real. Its also heavily guarded and supposed to not exist up until recently. Located in the Nevada desert. Area 51 is what brought us the Blackbird and Stealth creations. This is all in conjunction with Wright Patterson Air Force Base which was allegedly the first stop after the Roswell incident.

I do believe Roswell happened I just don't think it was Aliens and probably something our own government built and failed.

[thispego]

I'm not saying nothing happened. You're into Area 51. That's fine.

just because i believe something happened there means im into it? :lol

[BacktoBasics]

Area 51 is a remote tract of land in the southwestern portion of southern Nevada in the western United States. Situated at its center, on the southern shore of a dry lakebed (salt lake), is a large military airfield, one of the most secretive places in the world. The base's primary purpose is to support development and testing of experimental aircraft and weapons systems.[1][2]

The base lies within the United States Air Force's vast Nevada Test and Training Range. Although the facilities at the range are managed by the 99th Air Base Wing at Nellis Air Force Base, the Groom facility appears to be run as an adjunct of the Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC) at Edwards Air Force Base in the Mojave Desert, around 160 miles (260 km) from Groom (AFFTC homepage), and as such the base is known as Air Force Flight Test Center (Detachment 3).[3][4]

[thispego]

The crash was allegedly at Roswell NM not area 51.

no shit bitch

[BacktoBasics]

no shit bitchDude I was defending you. Stop biting the hand that feeds you.

[Don Quixote]

Okay fine. You believe that aliens landed at Roswell. That's cool.

[Extra Stout]

i always assumed extraterrestrial life would look almost like humans but with pointy ears, or some kind of prothesis-like pronounced ridge across their faces, or lots of extra hair.

[Sherlock Holmes]

i always assumed extraterrestrial life would look almost like humans but with pointy ears, or some kind of prothesis-like pronounced ridge across their faces, or lots of extra hair.
You've been watching too much Star Trek. It has been mostly theorized that extraterristial life are single celled organisms/ameobas etc. But that does not exclude that there is a chance that there are fully humanoid organisms out there.

I think there are extraterrestial bipedal/quadruped organisms in the universe. The universe is so big that no can can say with a definite yes or no whether an advanced organism exists.

[BacktoBasics]

Okay fine. You believe that aliens landed at Roswell. That's cool.
There is more enough evidence world wide that supports the belief of aliens.

Also the guy in the famous NM paper holding the wreckage came forward before he died and wrote a tell all. The secretary came forward in her late 60's or 70's with quite a bit of info as well. Its more compelling than you think. Quite a bit of info supports that at the very least the government went to great lengths to hide something.

[thispego]

Dude I was defending you. Stop biting the hand that feeds you.

:lol

[thispego]

Okay fine. You believe that aliens crashed at Roswell. That's cool.

[MannyIsGod]

Glad you got the reference. Yes, you are a dork.

And I am more than open to "new and exciting paradigms." If you have any logical reasons how it would be desirable or even possible to make contact with any civilized race out there, I'm all ears.

Its only viewed as impossible currently because our perception of time. But that changes very rapidly especially as a civilization grows. Think about it this way, 100 years ago a single year meant a lot more than it does now. What happens in a year today happens at a much accelerated pace. Society speeds up as it goes.

In other words, gaps of time that seem insurmountable to us today may not seem that way 100 years from now. I'm not saying they will or they won't, but you have to allow for the possibility that they will.

As for the desireability of seeking out other possible species I think you need look no further than the history of human travels and exploration. There have been driving factors for that including money and power, but there has also been a great deal of curiosity that has driven humans to explore in the past. We want to know things.

[MannyIsGod]

Maybe -- the evidence for aliens visiting us is pretty scant. I know there's stories and some unexplained phenomena, but it would be fallacious to conclude that aliens have necessarily landed, based on these few reports.

And, they still face the same obstacles seeing and finding us, as we do them. And, who says they're friendly?

I think one thing people expect is to see aliens here exploring us in big space ships etc etc. I think people have to allow for the possibility of alien visitation being done on earth at the nano scale. Its fairly safe to say that with the upcoming breakthroughs in nanotechnology machines will be miniturized to a great extent and what if those aliens we keep looking for in giant space craft are really here at the microscopic level?

[DarkReign]

I think one thing people expect is to see aliens here exploring us in big space ships etc etc. I think people have to allow for the possibility of alien visitation being done on earth at the nano scale. Its fairly safe to say that with the upcoming breakthroughs in nanotechnology machines will be miniturized to a great extent and what if those aliens we keep looking for in giant space craft are really here at the microscopic level?

Now thats an interesting take.

I for one, believe the universe is much too big to be devoid of life save Earth.

I believe in time (eons, if we're even around), life will be seen as abundant. Whether its a virus/bacteria on an asteroid or some other civilization traversing the stars.

Its the human condition to think we are the center of everything. Center of the solar system, center of the Galaxy, center of the universe, center of life, the center of God.

Self importance knows no bounds. Our greatest attribute and Achilles heel all in the same smug package.

[JoeChalupa]

I haven't travelled space and time doofis :lol I'm not the one saying there is or isn't life out there. I'm only saying that if there is, we'll never know it or find them.

And what makes you so confident that there is? How could you possibly be confident?

I just feel that way. To think that in this massive universe of ours that we are the only living things just doesn't sit well with me. And as much as we've discovered including the possibilty of water on Mars who is to say we won't discover some microscopic living things? We may not find out in our life times but who is to say we won't in the future? Please tell me how you can see in the future and say we'll never know it or find them?

[MannyIsGod]

Now thats an interesting take.

I for one, believe the universe is much too big to be devoid of life save Earth.

I believe in time (eons, if we're even around), life will be seen as abundant. Whether its a virus/bacteria on an asteroid or some other civilization traversing the stars.

Its the human condition to think we are the center of everything. Center of the solar system, center of the Galaxy, center of the universe, center of life, the center of God.

Self importance knows no bounds. Our greatest attribute and Achilles heel all in the same smug package.

I just think that people think today so much in terms of their physical bodies. Really as the information age goes on maybe the human body becomes far less important and the human mind takes new roles.

Its funny because I really have nothing else to compare this to, but if you think about certain scenes from movies like The Matrix and Lawnmower Man you find a lot more of what our future contains or might possibly contain than from movies like 2001:ASO.

Are bodies the end all be all or are they a tool that we use to facilitate our minds?

[Don Quixote]

Its only viewed as impossible currently because our perception of time. But that changes very rapidly especially as a civilization grows. Think about it this way, 100 years ago a single year meant a lot more than it does now. What happens in a year today happens at a much accelerated pace. Society speeds up as it goes.

In other words, gaps of time that seem insurmountable to us today may not seem that way 100 years from now. I'm not saying they will or they won't, but you have to allow for the possibility that they will.

As for the desireability of seeking out other possible species I think you need look no further than the history of human travels and exploration. There have been driving factors for that including money and power, but there has also been a great deal of curiosity that has driven humans to explore in the past. We want to know things.

That's fine and good, and I agree that humanity will inevitably try their luck in outer space. But I fear you're being a wee bit overly optimistic about our ability to overcome these astronomical (pun intended) obstacles in the realm of space and time. I'm more than open to the possibility that we'll discover some breakthrough, but it will have to be just that -- a real breakthrough in the fabric of space and time. Because in the 3-D world we live in, we're not getting much past Mars in our lifetime.

I'd say it's much, much more likely that our civilization flames out (either goes extinct, or undergoes a general decline not unlike the Fall of Rome or the collapse of the Sumerians) than any of these things actually happening. Not only must we develop the technology (at enormous cost), but we need somewhere to go, and someone to meet when we get there. Highly, highly unlikely.

As a Christian believer, I would add that the eschaton (the "End," but I'm not a big rapture guy) would happen long before we come across any humanoids. I'd be thrilled if we were to find cosmic DNA, let alone life.

[johngateswhiteley]

sweet article. leading to some interesting thoughts...and some not so interesting thoughts.

[sabar]

Doesn't matter, we could never get to these planets in any realistic time-frame. Plus the economic costs would ensure that it never happens. I suspect humanity will have killed itself off before it was able to create the means for interstellar travel.

We can't even transmit information let alone people over these distances. If aliens live on some obscure planet in the Andromeda galaxy (the closest galaxy), it would take 5.0 million years just to send say a greeting and get a reply using light to transmit data.

Heck, even a close star like Gliese 876 is 15 light-years away and news would be 30 years behind. Propelling a spaceship over that distance would take a ridiculous amount of energy.

This reminds me of a problem in cryptography where you have to find the factors of a large prime number. Even if technology somehow advanced so that we could store 100 GB of data on a 1 cubic centimeter piece of medium that weighed 1/100th of a gram, you would need more data storage than exists mass on the Earth to tabulate those factors of the prime.

Basically, some things are just not possible. Or rather, feasible.

The reason technology has advanced so far from ye olde times is because of physics. But fact is, we are hitting our limits in what we can discover. Stuff is getting too small so that it's too brittle, no matter which alloy is used or so big that it's structurally impossible. Even the most meticulously crafted things like carbon nanotubes have limits.

Like Don Quixote says, we should at most probably look for cosmic dna as far as extraterrestrial life goes.

[Ignignokt]

aliens don't have to be from other planets. they can be from another dimension and can travel in and out, so the whole it takes time to get here crap is unnescessary.

[johngateswhiteley]

http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/specialrelativity/TravelDilation.html

[johngateswhiteley]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hands-up-who-really-understands-what-stephen-hawking-is-telling-us-426687.html

[johngateswhiteley]

http://www.time.com/time/reports/v21/science/stars.html

[TacoCabanaFajitas]

I do believe there is life out there somewhere but I don't believe we will be around to see it given the current state of space travel/exploration plans for the future. Humans time on this planet is roughly equal to taking one step in a 3,000 mile walk. We are really just starting to discover what we are capable of. 100 years ago we barely developed the ability to travel by air, 200 years ago our country was being founded and the idea of ever reaching the moon was more than likely never even thought of. 200 years is nothing at all. There are people who are 113 years old right now, and they can probably remember their grandparents or great-grandparents which would mean 3 generations could quite easily span over 250-300 years. My point is, we can't even being to imagine what this planet, or the future of our race will look like 200 years from now, let alone 500 or 1000 if we are still around. I would love to be able to see the first day we colonize another planet or run into intelligent life, but it is more than likely not going to happen...but I'm sure there are people living who said the same thing about ever seeing men zip through the air in planes.

[ATRAIN]

I think Earth is a intergalactic reality show. South park nailed it watch this

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103622/

[MateoNeygro]

The richers can leave. It'll take em at least 10,000 years to get where they're going, with current technology. (I just took a stab at it -- I don't have a clue how many years it would take.) And the odds that this alleged M-class planet actually (a) has life, (b) has some form of civilization, (c) isn't either still in its "primordial soup" stage or extinct by 3 billion years, or (d) won't vaporize us and take over our planet if we do make contact ... are rather slim.

And if they're there, how come we haven't heard from them? Can't they send a signal? They're probably not even worth conquering.

HAHA this is quite a think tank ya'll got going on, awesome observations guys. It gave me a good laugh ya'll are the shit!

[Don Quixote]

Maybe so.

But what if they come, and they happen across my cat -- who's friendly and goes up to people. If they don't find any humans, then they might conclude that we're a planet full of friendly animals (no people, nukes, ICBMs, etc.). And they they'll come -- and vaporize us.

Who says they'll be friendly?

[thispego]

bible thumpers like yourself can't be taken seriously in conversations like this

[pawe]

Maybe so.

But what if they come, and they happen across my cat -- who's friendly and goes up to people. If they don't find any humans, then they might conclude that we're a planet full of friendly animals (no people, nukes, ICBMs, etc.). And they they'll come -- and vaporize us.

Who says they'll be friendly?

Why do aliens always come out as violent invading creatures anyway?
You think earth people will destroy an alien civilization IF we somehow find one?
Well, come to think of it, there are reasons why aliens go out and look for other planets: resources, knowledge, curiousity, habitation...

[Don Quixote]

bible thumpers like yourself can't be taken seriously in conversations like this

Neither can idiots like you. Run along now.

[Supreme_Being]

Interesting, but I doubt it.

[DarkReign]

Well, come to think of it, there are reasons why aliens go out and look for other planets: resources, knowledge, curiousity, habitation...

To a civilization capable of traveling the stars, there must be certain hurdles they have have overcome that defy our understanding.

1. Resource - as in renewable or easily attainable material(s)
2. Energy - as in renewable and infinite (cold fusion, perpetual motion, etc)
3. Genome Mastery - cool as they may be, if one bastard got sick on the flight, it could kill the entire armada. The mastery of their very DNA/genetic makeup would be paramount to even fathom traversing the stars as a way of life.

But then again, Manny brings a different perspective on the matter with machines (or more to the point, nanomachines) being the "all seeing eye".

Possible just as so many other things are, but I for one think unlikely. Im sure such a civilization is more than capable of such tech and scouting preference....but I think it would be unnecessary to say the least.

With the 3 items attained above (most likely a helluva lot more than those) sending "robots" in your stead is a waste of resource and time. We as humans send out probes/satellites to the edge of our solar system and think we're some hot shit when we have to wait months (even years) for their signal to be sent back.

The beings we speculate upon would only use such "craft" as advanced scouting (if thats even required, seeing as their tech would border on the divine) in anticipation of direct observation.

I for one believe if such beings exist, then they are certainly benign (that is, they arent going to intentionally kill us for our oil/metal/lifeforce/wtf ever).

Think about our uselessness to them. We are no more significant to them then ants are to us (cosmologically speaking, maybe even less so...maybe like we view single-celled organisms, so off our radar they dont even exist outside a microscope viewed by the few who have interest). We kill ants because they invade our homes making for an unsightly addition to your abode. In what way does our existence offend them that eradication is preferable?

No one can know for sure. But if such a species exists, and if our existence was reprehensible to them then we'd already be space junk.

Because if they do exist then their tech is divine and they know of us, about us and study us. After all, in can be said with good general authority that they are nothing more than scientists...we are just unaware of what inspires them at this point. Cataloging comes to mind, but what the hell do I know.

[Don Quixote]

Some good points here ... If there's any possibility of us making actual, physical contact with any being "out there," it would have to be on the order of nano-technology. That would require, by the way, probes far more advanced than anything we're sending out now. Shoot, look how long it took for the Voyagers to finally leave the solar system!

It certainly wouldn't involve sending any actual humans -- our lifespans are far too short, and we wouldn't want to send any of our best, brightest, bravest, and best-trained into some far-away realm where they are certain to never come back. So on these counts you are right.

As for your idea that any visitors are benign, I admit it would be a possibility. A good possibility. But I would stop short of saying that with certainty. We just don't know if they'd be friendly. And would you be willing to take that chance, if some civilization from some far-flung place, with technology and know-how far exceeding our own, were to show up on our doorstep? I wouldn't. I'd do my best not to be blown to bits by them.

[thispego]

funny

[peewee's lovechild]

You can't make posts like this under any type of authority. Its pretty much impossible to be able say what the Human Race will be doing in 50 years much less EVER.

I have to agree with you here.

At the turn of the previous century, it was absolutely laughable to think that man could be on the moon. But, less than 70 years later, man did just that.

Who knows what man is capable of? It's entirely plausible that we could make our way to other planets.

[peewee's lovechild]

Okay fine. You believe that aliens landed at Roswell. That's cool.

According to you, and others like you, there was an alien in Earth.

His name was Jesus (Yeshua).

[peewee's lovechild]

Now thats an interesting take.

I for one, believe the universe is much too big to be devoid of life save Earth.

I believe in time (eons, if we're even around), life will be seen as abundant. Whether its a virus/bacteria on an asteroid or some other civilization traversing the stars.

Its the human condition to think we are the center of everything. Center of the solar system, center of the Galaxy, center of the universe, center of life, the center of God.

Self importance knows no bounds. Our greatest attribute and Achilles heel all in the same smug package.


Good post.

[peewee's lovechild]

That's fine and good, and I agree that humanity will inevitably try their luck in outer space. But I fear you're being a wee bit overly optimistic about our ability to overcome these astronomical (pun intended) obstacles in the realm of space and time. I'm more than open to the possibility that we'll discover some breakthrough, but it will have to be just that -- a real breakthrough in the fabric of space and time. Because in the 3-D world we live in, we're not getting much past Mars in our lifetime.

Wormholes.

[peewee's lovechild]

Maybe so.

But what if they come, and they happen across my cat -- who's friendly and goes up to people. If they don't find any humans, then they might conclude that we're a planet full of friendly animals (no people, nukes, ICBMs, etc.). And they they'll come -- and vaporize us.

Who says they'll be friendly?

Fucking retard.

If they come across your cat, then they'll likely come across you or some other human.

Unless your cat is the only living thing in your neighboorhood and the aliens just won't bother with exploring the rest of your city, that is.

[thispego]

its funny watching dumbasses take stabs at intellectuality

[peewee's lovechild]

We just don't know if they'd be friendly. And would you be willing to take that chance, if some civilization from some far-flung place, with technology and know-how far exceeding our own, were to show up on our doorstep? I wouldn't. I'd do my best not to be blown to bits by them.

Paranoid fucks like you disturb me.

[peewee's lovechild]

To a civilization capable of traveling the stars, there must be certain hurdles they have have overcome that defy our understanding.

1. Resource - as in renewable or easily attainable material(s)
2. Energy - as in renewable and infinite (cold fusion, perpetual motion, etc)
3. Genome Mastery - cool as they may be, if one bastard got sick on the flight, it could kill the entire armada. The mastery of their very DNA/genetic makeup would be paramount to even fathom traversing the stars as a way of life.

What about dark matter?

I don't know much more than what I've read, but I've understood that dark matter could be used as a constant source of energy if we could somehow find a way of harnessing it. Then again, there are scientists who doubt the existence of dark matter.

[phyzik]

I didnt see it brought up so.... Has anyone heard of the Drake equation?

Its a mathmatical formula that attempts to guess how much life there is in a given galaxy.

N = R* x Fp x Ne x Fe x Fi x Fc x L

N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and

R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy

Fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets

Ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

Fe is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point

Fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life

Fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space

Anyway, on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation they show the current equation with the most recent data available.

R* = 7/year, fp = 0.5, ne = 2, fe = 0.33, fi = 0.01, fc = 0.01, and L = 10000 years

result in

N = 7 × 0.5 × 2 × 0.33 × 0.01 × 0.01 × 10000 = 2.3

So, its possible that there might be 1 other Intelligent civilization out there besides our own, at least in our galaxy.

[Extra Stout]

According to you, and others like you, there was an alien in Earth.

His name was Jesus (Yeshua).
Begone, docetist.

[Don Quixote]

Hmmm ... that might be docetist. I was thinking that it was Gnostic. Definitely stupid, though.

[Extra Stout]

Anyway, on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation they show the current equation with the most recent data available.

R* = 7/year, fp = 0.5, ne = 2, fe = 0.33, fi = 0.01, fc = 0.01, and L = 10000 years

result in

N = 7 × 0.5 × 2 × 0.33 × 0.01 × 0.01 × 10000 = 2.3

So, its possible that there might be 1 other Intelligent civilization out there besides our own, at least in our galaxy.
R* and fp can conceivably be estimated based upon observable data. The other five factors are wild-ass guesses. Sometimes a non-scientific agenda leads people to call their wild-ass guesses "data."

[Cry Havoc]

Some good points here ... If there's any possibility of us making actual, physical contact with any being "out there," it would have to be on the order of nano-technology. That would require, by the way, probes far more advanced than anything we're sending out now. Shoot, look how long it took for the Voyagers to finally leave the solar system!


Well, let's see.

In Roman times, what would an F-22 Raptor have been seen as? Even possible in the realm of the wildest dreams of science?

It took us millions of years to evolve to the point of flight. It then took us less than half a century to go from flight to space.

How the HELL can you say what the next scientific breakthrough might reveal?

What happens if we find some incredibly concise method for understanding space-time relativity? What happens if we find a building block that the entire universe was constructed upon?

People who say something isn't possible just have not been paying enough attention to the history of science, especially in the past 200 years.

[peewee's lovechild]

Begone, docetist.

He was an alien.

[NASpurs]

He was an alien.

Was he on the spaceship that came with Xenu? :lol

I keed.

[peewee's lovechild]

Was he on the spaceship that came with Xenu? :lol

I keed.

:lmao

[DarkReign]

its funny watching dumbasses take stabs at intellectuality

Its a good thing you never try.

[TacoCabanaFajitas]

He was an alien.

Just to throw it out there, but does anyone have any thoughts about the many different supposed "UFO sightings" in the bible?

[thispego]

Its a good thing you never try.

true... it is effortless for me

[DarkReign]

It certainly wouldn't involve sending any actual humans -- our lifespans are far too short, and we wouldn't want to send any of our best, brightest, bravest, and best-trained into some far-away realm where they are certain to never come back. So on these counts you are right.

It sounds as though youre speaking from a modern view, that is our current technology. If so, then I agree.

But, lets assume (<-- always a bad idea) that in the next 20-50 years we master the Human Genome.

Automatically, our lifespans increase (or at least the lives of our progeny). By how much? Ive read Scientific American articles on such things, but I am no gene therapist. If we could stop or slow down the brain's "internal clock" (that which regulates the release of certain enzymes which erode the cell-splitting process, until it ultimately comes to halt ie.death) then really, living forever is possible.

The mastering of the human genome out of the 3 criteria I stated is the most plausible in our lifetime, but no less significant (if not the most).

Granted, eternal life is a wonderful (maybe wonderful) byproduct of such a break thru. The real benefit is the elimination of all birth defects, genetic deficiencies and (theoretically) the ability to treat sick patients to full health (minus viruses, as I understand it).

Obviously, there are drawbacks. No one lives forever, no matter how scientifically possible it is. For every year we drive, the possibility of being in a fatal car accident rises. For every time we cross a road, our likelihood of being struck by a car rises. Its actually been said that if everyone on Earth were to "live forever" we would not have a population problem. Its just that accidental deaths would rise to the highest known levels, thereby balancing such numbers. Im off track....

Extending human lifespans to anything over 300 years (very young by immortal standards) automatically allows human voyage into space possible (possible in that the passengers will actually live to see their destination...not having the tech to reach said destination). As johngateswhitely linked up in previous posts, time dilation becomes an eminent factor. One portion of human exploration would have been "solved" while others will certainly arise in its place (namely the ability to get "there").


As for your idea that any visitors are benign, I admit it would be a possibility. A good possibility. But I would stop short of saying that with certainty. We just don't know if they'd be friendly.

Fair. Totally fair. Nothing is certain I willfully admit that. The possibility of "them" being hostile is definitely something consider.


And would you be willing to take that chance, if some civilization from some far-flung place, with technology and know-how far exceeding our own, were to show up on our doorstep? I wouldn't. I'd do my best not to be blown to bits by them.

In a word....YES!

Obviously, Im no shot-caller so my opinion is worthless if there were ever a Contact situation. But I fear aliens less than I do humans.

Here is my reasoning behind such a notion, to be clear:

1) If we could "reach" them, then they certainly could have "reached" us (if they havent already)

2) Same logic in my previous post. On the scale of significance, we probably rate somewhere between mosquito shit and fly dung to them. If Earth holds something they covet (resource,whatever) theyd have taken it already (see #1).

3) As much as movies glorify Alien Invaders and this notion of star-traveling species who hunt for sport or what have you, the possibility of such a thing is minute. I'd say less than the possibility that we humans are in fact alone in this universe (or continuum, whatever suits your fancy).

I base this on nothing but common sense (which I believe to be universal). Here is why:

a)Imagine what sort of cooperative effort from the entire human species it would take to create and fund a manned inter-solar system expedition. Now think about galactic exploration. Yeah.

b)The exploitation of the weak must always benefit the strong. Colonization of America, Spanish colonization of Latin America, the Philippines, Australia, etc etc. All in the name of new land and resource. Life feeds on life. You have what we want and we're taking it. See #1 above for reasons I think its unlikely aliens want our shit (if they even exist).

The one wild card that can never be accounted for is if we were viewed as "competition". I cant stretch my imagination far enough to come up with a viable reason for us to be seen as any sort of competition to a space-faring race of super-evolved scientists.

Unless of course the movies are correct and that our contact with them could be seen as a harbinger for destruction due to our human nature of war. But that is such a Hollywood idea of self ingratiating grandeur, I cant venture down that path of logic without puking out Will Smith and Orson Wells.

IF aliens exist and IF they are capable of intergalactic travel and IF we were to come into contact here on Earth or abroad, then it could be assumed they knew about us long before we knew about them and that any reason they would have had to destroy us would have been acted upon long before now.

Unless of course they feed on advanced lifeforces and are only watching our slow-steady progression through science and technology as a germination process when that we reach the zenith of human achievement, theyll swoop down from the heavens harvesting our very souls and stripping Mother Earth of her organs.

Thats entirely possible. Our ability to detect planets revolving around other stars is in its infancy. We are only able to detect massive planets that have very, very short solar years as they affect the stars "wobble" (light-wise) due to the conflicting gravitational fields.

Maybe theres entire solar systems full of stripped planets due to such a race.

Even with that possibility, if we humans were ever to discover another alien race (the equivalent of an insect discovering the earth is round and convincing other insects of it authenticity, if not more profound), then I would not fear such a thing.

They use to think you could sail off the "edge of the world". Brave was the soul who took a crew of men beyond the horizon and back again. Our humanity is our divinity, living or dying with it is all that counts in the end.

As a side note, the "aliens" would be the last thing I would fear in the case of actual discovery. I would fear humans even more than I do today as the powers that be would be hard-pressed to relinquish their hard-earned power in the face of such an event. Enlightenment to the universe could never be better expressed than with the meeting of another sentient species. Our skin colors would dissolve over night, along with our religions and our differences. The knowledge of something "out there" would unite us unlike any known force on a macro scale. A common goal? Or a common enemy? Who decides?

[DarkReign]

R* and fp can conceivably be estimated based upon observable data. The other five factors are wild-ass guesses. Sometimes a non-scientific agenda leads people to call their wild-ass guesses "data."

QFT. I have heard of the Drake Equation. Its just that when I heard about it, it was in reference to its wild mathematical assumptions about planets that are life-capable, divided by the probability of life actually happening on a life-capable planet, then divided by that life actually evolving into sentient lifeforms.

When the scientist/mathematician is born that can formulate such an equation as to prove beyond reasonable doubt that life is as predictable as gravity or even as loosely as electron collision, the Nobel Prize will be looked upon as second place compared to the new award given.

[DarkReign]

true... it is effortless for me

:rolleyes

[E20]

I think thispego is implying that this discussion is a waste of time, because nothing will come out of it except what everybody already knows:

A side who believes in ET's/life/space travel

A side who doesn't.

[DarkReign]

I think thispego is implying that this discussion is a waste of time, because nothing will come out of it except what everybody already knows:

A side who believes in ET's/life/space travel

A side who doesn't.

Fair. But to expound on the possibilities is a fun time waster. Im not trying to convince others of aliens or vice versa. Its more an "if-then" thread in my mind.

I could do the same on religion. Not trying to convince anyone of God, but "if" there is, "then".....

[E20]

Yeah it's always amusing to think indepth about things on a cosmic scale or time travel produces a bunch of what if's, or even some little things like chairs or words, but personally I like the what if I won the lotto day dreams.

Infact there have been like 3-4 people from Michigan winning a nationwide lottery drawing in consecutive cashouts, that's rare. bastards.

[Don Quixote]

Good posts, from DarkKingdom at least :)

First of all, I'm not exactly in the school that says far space travel is impossible. It would be more than possible IF we could make some serious breakthroughs that are as of yet not even close to being attained. As of now, we'd (and they'd) have to overcome serious obstacles with space (aliens are freakin far away! we have to find em first) and time (it'll take a lifetime or more to get there). We know this already.

I don't share your optimism, though, that science will advance to the point that we'll ever be able to overcome them. Don't get me wrong -- I am well aware that science and technology has advanced greatly since the dawn of civilization, and at a frightening pace since the Industrial Revolution. I am also well aware that we no longer operate from a Newtonian cosmology, but an Einsteinian one. But are we really capable of the kind of technological breakthroughs necessary to bend space and time? As advanced and freaky as our modern fighter jets are, and they're awesome, they're essentially imitating what birds do, albeit with alot more firepower and weapons. We have all kinds of drugs for diabetes, cancer, arthritis, anal fissures, hemorroids, you name it, and they're good. But they still operate in the same space-time universe that we do.

On the other hand, to really be able to accomplish traversing, say, 20 light years to the nearest planet, is on an order of sophistication exponentially greater than anything we have going. As fast and powerful and cool we can make flying objects and weapons, I think the "space-time" thing is beyond our reach.

Lastly ... the notion of tweaking our DNA to live forever is a pipe dream. We get happy when someone lives to a hundred. This is no different than the earliest days of civilization: 80-100 was about the normal limit, although a LOT fewer lived to that age back in Bible times, etc. Get us up to 120 and that'd be real progress.

My real problem with bumping up the lifespan to, say, 1000 is ... (a) we're doing this so people can live long enough to make the trip. How many of our people would do this knowing they're facing decades, if not centuries, in space, and its not certain that they'll get where they're going?

and (b) Do you really want to live to 1000?? Shoot, I know people in their 40's already grumpy about the kids today and wanting to go back to the good ole days. Imagine how ornery they'll be at 1000!

[Don Quixote]

I think thispego is implying that this discussion is a waste of time, because nothing will come out of it except what everybody already knows:

A side who believes in ET's/life/space travel

A side who doesn't.

Let's hear it for dialectical materialism!!

[E20]

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

So I just read that and from teh gist of it is from what I can make out, is that it's that everything can be explained by matter and this is the only life there is. Thomas's Cosmological arguement and Ansome's ontological one are good philosophies to contrast and provide a counter arguement.

[Brutalis]

Odds are if there is life there, they already know about us.

[Don Quixote]

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

So I just read that and from teh gist of it is from what I can make out, is that it's that everything can be explained by matter and this is the only life there is. Thomas's Cosmological arguement and Ansome's ontological one are good philosophies to contrast and provide a counter arguement.

Very good! It can be said that dialectical materialism was the dominant ontology of the 20th century. Surely it held a huge influence, for it was the basis of communism.

Another key aspect of the dialectical approach, what I was driving at, was its reading into history, philosophy, religion, you-name-it, the struggle between warring factions. Some guy said that in any debate about X, some people believe X, others believe Y. The dialectical solution would be to find a way to merge the two and produce Z. While there may be a certain amount of this going on in the real world, I would never hold such a cynical view of truth, and I trust you wouldn't either.

[Extra Stout]

Is not 20th-century evangelicalism simply a dialectical fusion of fundamentalism and liberalism?

[Extra Stout]

Just to throw it out there, but does anyone have any thoughts about the many different supposed "UFO sightings" in the bible?
I am aware of the "wheel" in Ezekiel, but calling it a UFO sighting is an example of a common fallacy wherein we superimpose our worldview and understanding upon the text.

[Extra Stout]

DQ, cosmology is reaching the point where Einsteinian physics aren't cutting it any more.

[DarkReign]

I am aware of the "wheel" in Ezekiel, but calling it a UFO sighting is an example of a common fallacy wherein we superimpose our worldview and understanding upon the text.

I believe thats called interpretation, something the Bible has been subject to since they decided to write a book on the life and times of one Jesus Christ.

to spare the argument, I have no belief in references to UFOs in the Bible

[Extra Stout]

So let me get this straight... people are willing to believe in a superintelligent benevolent civilization of beings who observe us and possibly interact with us, who are so advanced we cannot even begin to comprehend what they might be... but belief in God is just superstition.

[Extra Stout]

I believe thats called interpretation, something the Bible has been subject to since they decided to write a book on the life and times of one Jesus Christ.

to spare the argument, I have no belief in references to UFOs in the Bible
That's called "poor interpretation."

The process of proper interpretation involves reading the text, drilling down to what the author's words would have meant in the cultural and historical context in which he wrote them, interpreting that meaning into general applicative principles, checking that interpretation against the conclusions of the wider and historical interpretive community, and then finally applying those principles within your own cultural and historical context.

[RandomGuy]

Good posts, from DarkKingdom at least :)

First of all, I'm not exactly in the school that says far space travel is impossible. It would be more than possible IF we could make some serious breakthroughs that are as of yet not even close to being attained. As of now, we'd (and they'd) have to overcome serious obstacles with space (aliens are freakin far away! we have to find em first) and time (it'll take a lifetime or more to get there). We know this already.

I don't share your optimism, though, that science will advance to the point that we'll ever be able to overcome them. Don't get me wrong -- I am well aware that science and technology has advanced greatly since the dawn of civilization, and at a frightening pace since the Industrial Revolution. I am also well aware that we no longer operate from a Newtonian cosmology, but an Einsteinian one. But are we really capable of the kind of technological breakthroughs necessary to bend space and time? As advanced and freaky as our modern fighter jets are, and they're awesome, they're essentially imitating what birds do, albeit with alot more firepower and weapons. We have all kinds of drugs for diabetes, cancer, arthritis, anal fissures, hemorroids, you name it, and they're good. But they still operate in the same space-time universe that we do.

On the other hand, to really be able to accomplish traversing, say, 20 light years to the nearest planet, is on an order of sophistication exponentially greater than anything we have going. As fast and powerful and cool we can make flying objects and weapons, I think the "space-time" thing is beyond our reach.

Lastly ... the notion of tweaking our DNA to live forever is a pipe dream. We get happy when someone lives to a hundred. This is no different than the earliest days of civilization: 80-100 was about the normal limit, although a LOT fewer lived to that age back in Bible times, etc. Get us up to 120 and that'd be real progress.

My real problem with bumping up the lifespan to, say, 1000 is ... (a) we're doing this so people can live long enough to make the trip. How many of our people would do this knowing they're facing decades, if not centuries, in space, and its not certain that they'll get where they're going?

and (b) Do you really want to live to 1000?? Shoot, I know people in their 40's already grumpy about the kids today and wanting to go back to the good ole days. Imagine how ornery they'll be at 1000!

They have done experiments with small worms in which they switched off the expression ONE GENE and the little buggers lifespans improved by SIX times.

Such things are very tantalizing when it comes to the possibility of tinkering wiht the things that end up killing us all in the end.

One possibility to consider:

Freezing embryos and thawing them out, growing them into children, and using them as the colonists/explorers when they get to where they are going.

This would have some interesting ethical considerations, though...

[RandomGuy]

...dialectical materialism...dominant ontology ... dialectical approach,


words...

too...

long...

AAAAHHH!!

:smchode:

[thispego]

man this threads sucks out loud

[Don Quixote]

DQ, cosmology is reaching the point where Einsteinian physics aren't cutting it any more.

Hmmm ... maybe not the strict cosmology as Einstein understood it. But, to the extent that we are learning about the ambiguity between matter & energy, space-time, we're still operating within that overall framework.

My overall point with space aliens visiting us, or we them, is that I'm not definitely ruling out the possibility. But it's real, real remote. Our civilization's not going to last forever, and neither will any civilization that's halfway near us (i.e., within 10 or so light-years). Within a finite time period, with very, vey limited technology (nothing close to what will be needed to overcome the aforementioned space and time obstacles), not to mention the ethical considerations, I don't see how it's going to happen. It's cool to write about and speculate, but it's not currently in the realm of reality. It's ... science fiction :lol

But ... hey, if we can discover a "worm hole" anywhere near us, or make one (and it doesn't swallow us whole, or crunch the earth to the size of a peanut), then great!

[DarkReign]

I don't share your optimism, though, that science will advance to the point that we'll ever be able to overcome them.

No argument from me on that. The hard science behind space travel is truly beyond my comprehension. I was just citing over-arching generalities to be able to feasibly overcome such obstacles.


Lastly ... the notion of tweaking our DNA to live forever is a pipe dream. We get happy when someone lives to a hundred. This is no different than the earliest days of civilization: 80-100 was about the normal limit, although a LOT fewer lived to that age back in Bible times, etc. Get us up to 120 and that'd be real progress.

My real problem with bumping up the lifespan to, say, 1000 is ... (a) we're doing this so people can live long enough to make the trip. How many of our people would do this knowing they're facing decades, if not centuries, in space, and its not certain that they'll get where they're going?

and (b) Do you really want to live to 1000?? Shoot, I know people in their 40's already grumpy about the kids today and wanting to go back to the good ole days. Imagine how ornery they'll be at 1000!

Haha...no, I dont want to live to 1000. I detest humanity entirely too much to want to stick around this hole for that long.

But "life extension" is not a pipe dream. Its a very real possibility thats closer to fruition than say, a Grand Unification Theory. Which is to say, key parts of the aging process have been identified and isolated. Lower lifeforms (common house flies for example) have had their lives extended with no drugs or stimulation, other than the elimination of sex (that is sexual reproduction). Dont quote me, but it went something like...

A common house fly lives for less than 72 hours (give or take, obviously). By eliminating the reproductive process from a control group of flies, over the course of generations (into the hundreds via in vitro (or the equivalent in flies) they have extended the life of said control group by months per fly.

It was speculated that the act of reproduction in all living organisms triggers a "countdown" in the body. Its the real start of the end.

So, studies have shown (on average) women who have no children live longer than those with (to some significant degree for a first generation subject). But that could be chalked up to the fact that a vast majority of women who can have children, do have children in this world. So the sample size is entirely to small and narrow to conclude anything. Its just an observation.

Anyway, reading your posts here have at least led me to believe you have a real understanding of various science fields. Believe it or not, it was a group of physicists who first proposed the very real possibility that "age" could be overcome.

It has to do with how humans perceive time. What in our brain/body gives us frame of reference for time? We can estimate, predict, remember and observe something as vague (but very real) like time from near birth, although it has no spatial value (at our current rate of speed that is...lol).

Investigating human perception of the vague but real notion of time, led to the discovery of certain enzymes (or signals) the brain releases that stop (or progressively slow over time) the cell-division process (i had to google it, its called cellular senescence).

If the advances made in this field are realized and isolated, a pill can be administered that dramatically reduces this enzyme or signal. Much like an anti-depressant drug that "dulls" the corresponding signals associated with depression.

The key factor in my optimism of such a breakthrough is that it works near exponentially. This process of aging is non-existent (actually, its the reverse...growth) up to adolescence, then it pauses completely (that is cells maintain their current number, state of health and capacity to reproduce) until the late 20s (-ish).

Then the capacity for all cells in the body to split is gradually reduced. First, its near unidentifiable. Then it registers, then its rapid, then it stops all together. Soon after (as in very, very soon), death.

Taking a "cellular senescence inhibitor" at the proper age (late 20s-ish) would extend first generation patients by nearly 15-20 years.

Second generation, 25-35 years. So on and so on. And thats only with one specific reduction method administered (that is, the first generation drug would never be optimized or improved).

Again, dont quote me directly on the exact numbers (age of aging being 20ish, extension of life being 15-20 years, so on) but only the over-arching reality that age reduction pills will almost certainly be created (not necessarily available, obvious reasons) in our life time or at least before 2100.

The aging process is not Genome Mastery, I realize that. But its baby steps like this (this being one of the larger steps for its implications, IMO, not necessarily its science) that lead to such a notion.

[DarkReign]

That's called "poor interpretation."

The process of proper interpretation involves reading the text, drilling down to what the author's words would have meant in the cultural and historical context in which he wrote them, interpreting that meaning into general applicative principles, checking that interpretation against the conclusions of the wider and historical interpretive community, and then finally applying those principles within your own cultural and historical context.

Like I said, I would like to spare the argument. I am no proponent of UFO references in the Bible....please.

[Don Quixote]

They have done experiments with small worms in which they switched off the expression ONE GENE and the little buggers lifespans improved by SIX times.

Such things are very tantalizing when it comes to the possibility of tinkering wiht the things that end up killing us all in the end.

One possibility to consider:

Freezing embryos and thawing them out, growing them into children, and using them as the colonists/explorers when they get to where they are going.

This would have some interesting ethical considerations, though...

It's possible ... ethics aside, of course. We're not worms, though. To get a worm, which might live, I dunno, a year, to live 6 years is very nice. But, to get a bit sloppy with my terminology, we'd eventually run into diminishing returns -- the potential for extending human life span couldn't help but level off. I'd say the best we can expect is, maybe, 120 years.

And if they could find the majic gene and make us live to, say to be 600, so what? Would that be enough to get us there? What if the spaceship breaks halfway there? That would be a cold, lonely death for our guys and their children.

And ... how grumpy do you think a 600 year old person is going to be, upon his return to earth?? :rollin

[DarkReign]

My overall point with space aliens visiting us, or we them, is that I'm not definitely ruling out the possibility. But it's real, real remote. Our civilization's not going to last forever, and neither will any civilization that's halfway near us (i.e., within 10 or so light-years). Within a finite time period, with very, vey limited technology (nothing close to what will be needed to overcome the aforementioned space and time obstacles), not to mention the ethical considerations, I don't see how it's going to happen. It's cool to write about and speculate, but it's not currently in the realm of reality. It's ... science fiction :lol

:lmao Totally true. But even you listed certain certainties held by the leading minds of science less than 150 years ago, which after being debunked, are considered common knowledge to any kid watching the footage from the moon landing.

[Tin Foil Hat]But, but, but that was done in a Hollywood studio! FAKE![/Tin Foil Hat]

[Don Quixote]

man this threads sucks out loud

then leave:toast

[Don Quixote]

It's .... cool. That's what it is. But it ain't reality. At least I don't think so.

And who would fund all thi$ anyway?

[DarkReign]

So let me get this straight... people are willing to believe in a superintelligent benevolent civilization of beings who observe us and possibly interact with us, who are so advanced we cannot even begin to comprehend what they might be... but belief in God is just superstition.

The possibility of a Grand Creator, responsible for the very shaping of matter, time and life.....ONE SENTIENT ENTITY ALONE, defys science as I understand it.

Now on the other hand, polytheism has its allure....

[Don Quixote]

That's called "poor interpretation."

The process of proper interpretation involves reading the text, drilling down to what the author's words would have meant in the cultural and historical context in which he wrote them, interpreting that meaning into general applicative principles, checking that interpretation against the conclusions of the wider and historical interpretive community, and then finally applying those principles within your own cultural and historical context.

No kidding. Reading aliens into the Bible is what we would call eisegesis :lol

Cults and "alternative movements" do this all the time with the Bible, reading what they want to be in it, and not really taking into consideration the cultural and linguistic context of the writer.

Ezekiel, especially in the original Hebrew, is beautiful and haunting (and uplifting) enough -- it doesn't need aliens.

[Don Quixote]

The possibility of a Grand Creator, responsible for the very shaping of matter, time and life.....ONE SENTIENT ENTITY ALONE, defys science as I understand it.

Now on the other hand, polytheism has its allure....

Well, yes. The god of monotheism by definition exists ESSENTIALLY outside of space and time. This is not to say that He cannot enter into creation and do what he will, but in his essence he is not a part of the universe (how can he be? he made it!) As such, he cannot be observed or "studied" or quantified scientifically. We can do this with creation (indeed, modern science developed due to the western theistic idea that creation is orderly and teleologically-driven, and can be studied), but not with God himself.

But what's the allure of polytheism? Modern examples being ... Mormonism, Hinduism, and of course classical Roman and Greek polytheism.

[DarkReign]

It's .... cool. That's what it is. But it ain't reality. At least I don't think so.

And who would fund all thi$ anyway?

Semantics. We are discussing the possibility. Theoretically we can build a machine to rip the very fabric of space-time, all we need is a massive object spun to a speed near "c" and energy enough to start such a contraption.

X is possible with Y and Z. Y and Z are to be determined. (:lol)

[Don Quixote]

That would be on the order of something we've never come close to doing.

All of our cool technology, as great and mighty as it is, still operates in the same space-time as ancient man did, and as we do now. To rip the fabric of space-time (or just harness it so we can go somewhere --and go somewhere we'd actually want to go, like a planet full of beautiful women and no men) would be something no man has ever done before.

And how would we steer this contraption? I wouldn't want to end up on Pluto, except perhaps to take photos for a few minutes.

[DarkReign]

Well, yes. The god of monotheism by definition exists ESSENTIALLY outside of space and time. This is not to say that He cannot enter into creation and do what he will, but in his essence he is not a part of the universe (how can he be? he made it!) As such, he cannot be observed or "studied" or quantified scientifically. We can do this with creation (indeed, modern science developed due to the western theistic idea that creation is orderly and teleologically-driven, and can be studied), but not with God himself.

The difference between the belief (or possibilty in my case) of a species that exists in the same fabric of reality that I do, in comparison to the belief of a being (or beings) that exist in a different reality altogether than I is universe-sized, IMO.


But what's the allure of polytheism? Modern examples being ... Mormonism, Hinduism, and of course classical Roman and Greek polytheism.

It was a joke that you ruined by having to explain it now. If you were to tell me that many beings crafted space-time as we know it, I'd find that explanation much more plausible than one being.

[peewee's lovechild]

Hey DarkReign, you never responded to my post on Dark Matter.

[DarkReign]

That would be on the order of something we've never come close to doing.

All of our cool technology, as great and mighty as it is, still operates in the same space-time as ancient man did, and as we do now. To rip the fabric of space-time (or just harness it so we can go somewhere --and go somewhere we'd actually want to go, like a planet full of beautiful women and no men) would be something no man has ever done before.

And how would we steer this contraption? I wouldn't want to end up on Pluto, except perhaps to take photos for a few minutes.

Again, semantics. Blackholes do exist (which is what I meant by tearing a hole in space-time....not a wormhole...wormholes are theory only). We know how they start, we know the conditions that need to be met, etc.

So, in theory, we could reproduce nature in that sense. But the means to do it are unfathomable, thus making it only an excercise in "What if...".

But, it is possible but so close to zero looking at the list of need criteria (a starting mass millions (billions?) of times denser than our sun, spun to a speed near the speed of light, etc).

[DarkReign]

All of our cool technology, as great and mighty as it is, still operates in the same space-time as ancient man did, and as we do now.

Very true, we do operate under the same laws as prehistoric dinosaurs.

But what we have now over then is perspective and knowledge. And some say perception is reality.

Knowledge in that we understand more advanced concepts of gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. Blackholes werent even proven until...what, less than 30 years ago? They had been speculated by Einstein, but were never observed empirically until the latter portion of the 20th century.

The inner mechanics were understood soon after Einstein (thank you, Mr Newton), but couldnt be proven until other advances were made in (of all things) telescopes and their ability to "see" in different spectrums of light and waves (micro, gama, etc).

Perception is reality.

Only when scientists pinpointed what they thought to be blackhole, then waited for a known bright star to pass behind it, did they prove their very existence. Now, its being suggested black holes arent uncommon, but quite the opposite. That galaxies are kept together because of a massive black hole at the center. All theory, I know, but the sheer amount of discovered black holes is suggesting their preponderance...and if they are so common, then they have a use or a function.

[DarkReign]

You know, I didnt know Mormons were polytheists.

No shit.

[Extra Stout]

Scientists have no idea what the nature of 95% of the matter in the universe is. They have no idea how to reconcile gravity with the accelerating expansion of the universe. They have no idea how to reconcile contemporary understanding of energy with the accelerating expansion of the universe.

They are at a dead end, similar to the one physicists were at in the 1880's when blackbody radiation had them stumped.

[Don Quixote]

The difference between the belief (or possibilty in my case) of a species that exists in the same fabric of reality that I do, in comparison to the belief of a being (or beings) that exist in a different reality altogether than I is universe-sized, IMO.



It was a joke that you ruined by having to explain it now. If you were to tell me that many beings crafted space-time as we know it, I'd find that explanation much more plausible than one being.


Um, sorry. :lol

Do remember, though, that belief in beings that exist outside of our reality (i.e., God) is not based primarily on the evidence. At least it ought not to be. This is not to say there is no evidence; on the contrary, I think the evidence for a god is rather convincing. But the evidence (in science, history, etc.) is not the basis on our belief.

Polytheism, I guess, is satisfactory to the extent that it gets God off the hook for bad things that happen in the world (the gods are not all-powerful -- there are many of them), and for seemingly contradictory forces at work in nature (i.e., the god of gravity working against the god of womens' breasts :lol). I say, though, that it is monotheism, which is more complicated and "risky," that requires us to think about these things and try to resolve them (e.g., how can a god be both holy and forgiving?). Etc.

[Don Quixote]

You know, I didnt know Mormons were polytheists.


No joke. They don't advertise that one on TV. But the doctrine of eternal progression (men become gods) is a fundamental one for them. This is polytheism (or perhaps monarcho-theism; we become gods, but there's one God; it's hard to nail them down).

I did, I think, a nice piece of work on their metaphysic last summer, if you're interested.

[DarkReign]

Scientists have no idea what the nature of 95% of the matter in the universe is.

Ah yes, the all-inclusive "dark matter". The catchy term for scientists to explain the shit they dont know. The understanding that "something" is definintely acting equally and opposite to gravity between the spaces of known matter.


They have no idea how to reconcile gravity with the accelerating expansion of the universe. They have no idea how to reconcile contemporary understanding of energy with the accelerating expansion of the universe.

I realize the paradox of Big Bang. Are we ever expanding? Or are we expanding only to eventually collapse? How can we expand forever with such an immeasureable massive object(s) at the very center?

If so, are we the first iteration? Moreover, is Big Bang completely and utterly flawed?

I completely understand.


They are at a dead end, similar to the one physicists were at in the 1880's when blackbody radiation had them stumped.

Im not familiar with the reference. Im off to do some reading.

I like to mix philosophy with these sorts of arguments because its fitting. There were numerous dead-ends to our current dead-end. All a matter of perspective. For example, scientists are approaching the entire universal picture from a Big Bang perspective only because if Big Bang is true, then so many things are explained. Not all, just most, maybe even as little as some.

But if that very frame of reference we stand in is wrong, then our conclusions will reach an end under said reference (at some point). I am not saying we are at that point, just that that time will come (if it ever does).

[Don Quixote]

I thought the Big Bang was pretty much established -- red shift observed, it seems to fit the models for how galaxies and stars are born. And, theologically speaking, it is satisfying, for there clearly was a beginning.

[peewee's lovechild]

Scientists have no idea what the nature of 95% of the matter in the universe is. They have no idea how to reconcile gravity with the accelerating expansion of the universe. They have no idea how to reconcile contemporary understanding of energy with the accelerating expansion of the universe.

They are at a dead end, similar to the one physicists were at in the 1880's when blackbody radiation had them stumped.

Wasn't there a theory that dark matter/dark energy could be used as a fuel source.

I thought I read that somewhere.

[Don Quixote]

What would these space travellers eat?

If I were on a ship for 2000 years, I'd at least want some decent food.

[peewee's lovechild]

What would these space travellers eat?

If I were on a ship for 2000 years, I'd at least want some decent food.

Cryostasis.

They don't need to eat when they're inanimate.

[peewee's lovechild]

It worked in Aliens.

[DarkReign]

Um, sorry. :lol

:toast No need to apologize. I actually forgot to add an emoticon after the "ruined joke" sentence.


Do remember, though, that belief in beings that exist outside of our reality (i.e., God) is not based primarily on the evidence. At least it ought not to be. This is not to say there is no evidence; on the contrary, I think the evidence for a god is rather convincing. But the evidence (in science, history, etc.) is not the basis on our belief.

Polytheism, I guess, is satisfactory to the extent that it gets God off the hook for bad things that happen in the world (the gods are not all-powerful -- there are many of them), and for seemingly contradictory forces at work in nature (i.e., the god of gravity working against the god of womens' breasts :lol). I say, though, that it is monotheism, which is more complicated and "risky," that requires us to think about these things and try to resolve them (e.g., how can a god be both holy and forgiving?). Etc.

I think you just took two paragraphs to explain faith.

Which is fine, but its not my way. Monotheistic or Polytheistic for that matter. Since this is automatically a belief topic, Ill sum my belief up.

All religion is wrong. Man made institutions of control, which is the only thing humans crave via our objects of importance. Control over a chaotic existence, control over nature, control over animals and most importantly control over other humans.

I believe there is a "God" in the loosest sense of the term. But it is not as far away as heaven and you are no closer when in a church.

[DarkReign]

I thought the Big Bang was pretty much established -- red shift observed, it seems to fit the models for how galaxies and stars are born. And, theologically speaking, it is satisfying, for there clearly was a beginning.

I completely agree, so its out there. But it is still the Big Bang Theory for a reason. That was my only point.

[DarkReign]

Wasn't there a theory that dark matter/dark energy could be used as a fuel source.

I thought I read that somewhere.

Dark matter or dark energy are very vague terms on purpose. Theyre catch-alls.

Nothing more. So when someone or something suggests harnessing such a force, they are referring to the potential energy IF such a material exists outside of very controlled lab experiments that leave unexplainable trace debris that exist for less than a femtosecond.

Its not a dead end, in my mind. But its more than beyond our scope of understanding at the moment (and that moment is going to be very, very long).

[Don Quixote]

Very well. You are correct in saying that human religions have aspects of control structures in them, some more than others. Religion (or religious authority) can be and is a very bad thing when in the wrong hands. In a non-theistic universe, this explanation for religion is good enough. On the other hand, if there is a god, we would be well served to figure out what we can about him, and hopefully "get on his good side." I mean, if he's God, he gets to make the rules, no?

Now ... are there any good alternatives to the expanding universe? I know Einstein got stuck on the eternal, static universe (as did the early Mormons!!), but he eventually came around.

[DarkReign]

What would these space travellers eat?

If I were on a ship for 2000 years, I'd at least want some decent food.


Fly first class next time, you cheap ass.

Commoners...

[Don Quixote]

I have a feeling they'd be eating slop like in the Alien movies.

Doesn't sound like much of a life for me. Give me sunshine, Spurs games on the TV, and pretty women.

[DarkReign]

Very well. You are correct in saying that human religions have aspects of control structures in them, some more than others. Religion (or religious authority) can be and is a very bad thing when in the wrong hands. In a non-theistic universe, this explanation for religion is good enough. On the other hand, if there is a god, we would be well served to figure out what we can about him, and hopefully "get on his good side." I mean, if he's God, he gets to make the rules, no?

I dont think God (your term, not mine) needs to be pleased for our succession. You are what you are. That feeling you get when you help someone in need? That feeling you get when you wrong someone purposely?

Follow that compass and there is no God I can conceive that would damn me to ruin for checking out my neighbors wife when shes washing the SUV's rooftop.


Now ... are there any good alternatives to the expanding universe? I know Einstein got stuck on the eternal, static universe (as did the early Mormons!!), but he eventually came around.

In a word...no. But you already knew that.

[DarkReign]

And if I was damned for such a thing?

Fuck em.

[peewee's lovechild]

Dark matter or dark energy are very vague terms on purpose. Theyre catch-alls.

Nothing more. So when someone or something suggests harnessing such a force, they are referring to the potential energy IF such a material exists outside of very controlled lab experiments that leave unexplainable trace debris that exist for less than a femtosecond.

Its not a dead end, in my mind. But its more than beyond our scope of understanding at the moment (and that moment is going to be very, very long).

That explains it.

But, it would be cool if it's true.

[DarkReign]

That explains it.

But, it would be cool if it's true.

Very cool, indeed.

To be fair, dark energy is different than dark matter....but they are no less used to explain the unexplainable.

Dark energy most likely refers to the forces/matter unseen at the atomic level.
Dark matter most likely refers to the forces/matter unseen at the cosmic level.

Or a little of both. That why its vague.

[Don Quixote]

You indeed have a moral compass. Non-believers are certainly moral, too, sometimes as moral, or more moral, than believers. I make no pretentions, for instance, to have all my stuff together. I am curious, though, as to what you attribute this "moral compass" to. Your upbringing? (Sure, but where did your parents get it from? Their parents?)

Kant, I think, had the best non-theistic ethic (although he was a believer) out there. An act is moral, according to him, if all people at all times could do it and no harm would come. Or something like that. That's a decent ethic, although I am entirely too busy to critique that and other ethics at the moment. Get back to me in August.

I actually believe the moral argument (from the perspective of all men at all times having some sense of right and wrong) is the best of the arguments for God's existence. However, the Big Bang seems to be a big help for the cosmological argument (what was before the Big Bang? We dunno ... was there anything?) This is not an existence of God thread, but I guess you can't avoid it when talking about the universe. Which is fine.

[DarkReign]

I have a feeling they'd be eating slop like in the Alien movies.

Doesn't sound like much of a life for me. Give me sunshine, Spurs games on the TV, and pretty women.

Amen. But really, our control or understanding of matter at the point of space travel suggests such things as food would be the least of our problems.

But thats just me.

[Don Quixote]

Maybe the least of your problems!

I want catfish, and shrimp poboys, and chargrilled oysters. And jambalaya.

[DarkReign]

You indeed have a moral compass. Non-believers are certainly moral, too, sometimes as moral, or more moral, than believers. I make no pretentions, for instance, to have all my stuff together. I am curious, though, as to what you attribute this "moral compass" to. Your upbringing? (Sure, but where did your parents get it from? Their parents?)

I think that moral compass is God. Thats as close and as far as you will ever be...until the hereafter....maybe, no guarantees.


Kant, I think, had the best non-theistic ethic (although he was a believer) out there. An act is moral, according to him, if all people at all times could do it and no harm would come. Or something like that. That's a decent ethic, although I am entirely too busy to critique that and other ethics at the moment. Get back to me in August.

Unfamiliar with Kant. Add that to "blackbody radiation" under required reading.


I actually believe the moral argument (from the perspective of all men at all times having some sense of right and wrong) is the best of the arguments for God's existence. However, the Big Bang seems to be a big help for the cosmological argument (what was before the Big Bang? We dunno ... was there anything?) This is not an existence of God thread, but I guess you can't avoid it when talking about the universe. Which is fine.

Again, no argument from me. Especially when speaking in cosmic perspective, the end and the beginning are always a left turn from the conversation. I always welcome it until someone pulls out their "Holy Book of Ownage" as some sort of standard to be adhered to. Referencing is fine, all perspective is good perspective no matter how brief, but those unable to have a conversation outside of their belief's constraints is a waste of time. Thats all.

[DarkReign]

Maybe the least of your problems!

I want catfish, and shrimp poboys, and chargrilled oysters. And jambalaya.

:lmao Star Trek Replicator....problem = solved.

EDITED: Oysters?! Well folks, we have our first space candidate. His mind wanders no further than his loins...the perfect candidate for a multi-generational space voyage.

[Don Quixote]

Well ... I think referring to scripture, and only scripture, at this point would not be helpful. I hold scripture (Old and New Testament, nothing else) to be true and authoritative, and it enables us to know God truly but not exhaustively. (We need Scripture because there is quite alot about God that we would never know, unless he tells us. For instance ... most people, even non-believers, have this sense that God somehow loves them. Where would they get this idea from? Nature? A wild guess? No, that comes from scripture. That's not to say it's wrong or misguided, but stuff like that lies outside the realm of science.)

This means that the Christian ought to recognize other sources of truth than "just" scripture. I'm perfectly comfortable talking about science, time travel, biology, marriage, etc., as are you and I suspect most normal people.

[Don Quixote]

Yeah, the replicator. How did the original crew of the Enterprise eat?

[DarkReign]

I'm perfectly comfortable talking about science, time travel, biology, marriage, etc., as are you and I suspect most normal people.

I dont share your optimism on this subject. I can barely breathe in a crowded room full of people having a conversation like this thread.

I am not the smartest person in the world or in this thread. But I can literally feel my IQ dropping in those situations. I am the most quiet person in a live conversation of such things. Barely a peep.

Which is why forums like this are the best for such things. Your argument must be thought out (I didnt say well thought out) and it usually has a point, counter-point.

"Speaking" here about this stuff is easy because you always get "your time" by nature of the written word.

Ive lost a lot of respect for people I used to be very good friends with back in the day to a point where most if not all I do not speak to anymore. Not so much for their religious beliefs, morals or scientific acumen (easily overcome....very easy), but because they are so ingrained with the same, tired shit I have heard from countless other sheep they all start to look the same.

Therefore, they are categorized the same. Its like a blank face with an opening in the lower portion reading from the "How to Look, Act, Sound and Believe Like Everyone Else" handbook.

[Don Quixote]

I admire your honesty and decency. And humility ... not enough of that around here.

Time for the forum to put a burning "t" in front of me ...

[Don Quixote]

Time for me to go

[Cry Havoc]

I dont share your optimism on this subject. I can barely breathe in a crowded room full of people having a conversation like this thread.

I am not the smartest person in the world or in this thread. But I can literally feel my IQ dropping in those situations. I am the most quiet person in a live conversation of such things. Barely a peep.

Heh. 99 out of 100 people just want to spout their viewpoints and then get pissed at you for disagreeing with them. That is what sucks about situations like that.

[DarkReign]

Time for the forum to put a burning "t" in front of me ...


Time for me to go

:wtf?

[DarkReign]

No joke. They don't advertise that one on TV. But the doctrine of eternal progression (men become gods) is a fundamental one for them. This is polytheism (or perhaps monarcho-theism; we become gods, but there's one God; it's hard to nail them down).

I did, I think, a nice piece of work on their metaphysic last summer, if you're interested.

I would be interested, actually. I have strange fascination with all religion.

EDITED: I was going to edit the last sentence, but since it sounded so Japanese accent-ish, I thought it funny.

[Extra Stout]

I realize the paradox of Big Bang. Are we ever expanding? Or are we expanding only to eventually collapse? How can we expand forever with such an immeasureable massive object(s) at the very center?

If so, are we the first iteration? Moreover, is Big Bang completely and utterly flawed?

I completely understand.
Cosmologists have answered the questions in your first paragraph, and the answers are mystifying. Not only is the universe going to expand forever, the rate of expansion is accelerating. The current understanding of physics cannot explain this.


scientists are approaching the entire universal picture from a Big Bang perspective only because if Big Bang is true, then so many things are explained. Not all, just most, maybe even as little as some.

But if that very frame of reference we stand in is wrong, then our conclusions will reach an end under said reference (at some point). I am not saying we are at that point, just that that time will come (if it ever does).
They've actually not only detected the cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang, but also have mapped it, can tell you which spot in the universe it took place, and what conditions were like in the immediate aftermath.

[Extra Stout]

Wasn't there a theory that dark matter/dark energy could be used as a fuel source.

I thought I read that somewhere.
They don't even know what it is. How could they know if it can be used as a fuel source?

[peewee's lovechild]

They don't even know what it is. How could they know if it can be used as a fuel source?

I don't even remember what the concept was, just that I read in an article some time ago that dark matter/dark energy could be used as a fuel source because it was supposed to be abundant and it is probably the substance that fuels everything else in the universe.

It's been a while since I read that. That's why I was asking for clarity on it. You guys seem to be on top of those things.

[<�‡�>]

�|�� �|���|���|�|�� �|� �|�|�|
���|�|�� �|�|���|��|
� �|�|���|��|

���|�|�� �|� |���|�|�� �|���|� |� �|� �|�|�|���|�|�� �|�|���|��|


- <�‡�>

[DarkReign]

Cosmologists have answered the questions in your first paragraph, and the answers are mystifying. Not only is the universe going to expand forever, the rate of expansion is accelerating. The current understanding of physics cannot explain this.

I realize the conclusions drawn by the observations, but I dont pretend to know their overall implications.

One wild step forward seems to be the dark matter postulate. Or should I say the "we dont know wtf it is" theory.

To be clear, Im not ripping the science community for coining such a phrase. The term is needed to be sure.

Im not a scientist as I am sure I have demonstrated, but all things considered, this is a roadblock (a gigantic one) but certainly not a dead end.

But no less profound and...anticlimatic.


They've actually not only detected the cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang, but also have mapped it, can tell you which spot in the universe it took place, and what conditions were like in the immediate aftermath.

I expected this post after going to the bathroom (where all good reading material is kept).

I re-read the Scientific American I was referencing when I explained dark matter/dark energy.

It would seem this "force" governs the distance of cosmological entities almost exclusively (seeing as its density is close to Planck), especially galaxies and their early formation/collision tendencies.

That basically, dark matter is proven not by evidence of "it" but by what the universe would be like in the absence of "it". Very crowded.

All in all, its basically a given that the universe was created from a center (I never doubted it, just restated the "theory" portion of BB for perspective). But what in the hell could possibly be equal to gravity's force, but it seems to have overcome it and that rate is accelerating!

So, youre right. The real questions one should asking are...Will this invisible force(s) overcome us at some point and tear matter limb from proverbial limb at some point? That there is an end, only it isnt a return to center, but an obliteration in the farthest reaches of the not yet inhabited-by-anything space?

[DarkReign]

�|�� �|���|���|�|�� �|� �|�|�|
���|�|�� �|�|���|��|
� �|�|���|��|

���|�|�� �|� |���|�|�� �|���|� |� �|� �|�|�|���|�|�� �|�|���|��|


- <�‡�>

I vote "Best New and Original Troll" right now.

EDITED: :lmao at the favorite team. Classic.

[Don Quixote]

I would be interested, actually. I have strange fascination with all religion.


Well, good. I like studying comparative religions as well, and my main area of interest is Islam and the cults (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other strange groups) and the Christian response to them. I don't say that every religion is right or even good, but they are all an attempt to deal with issues that we have faced since the beginning (sin, right and wrong, mercy, etc.) And I suspect that you would agree that pure atheistic naturalism (i.e., no God, we evolved by chance, we die, that's it, tough) cannot provide these answers any better than religion can.

[Don Quixote]

Cosmologists have answered the questions in your first paragraph, and the answers are mystifying. Not only is the universe going to expand forever, the rate of expansion is accelerating. The current understanding of physics cannot explain this.


Yes, I have hear about this. But can the universe truly expand forever? I mean, it can expand for maybe a trillion more years, but at some point the system has to wind down completely, we get infinite entropy and "heat death."

This is fine, by the way. I'm more interested in the Big Bang, actually. Do you see any theistic implications from it?

[Don Quixote]

:wtf?

Watch the South Park episode about "The Richers." Suddenly, all these strange references about burning "t"s will make sense.

[Extra Stout]

This is fine, by the way. I'm more interested in the Big Bang, actually. Do you see any theistic implications from it?
I see theistic implications in everything.

[Nbadan]

Ive lost a lot of respect for people I used to be very good friends with back in the day to a point where most if not all I do not speak to anymore. Not so much for their religious beliefs, morals or scientific acumen (easily overcome....very easy), but because they are so ingrained with the same, tired shit I have heard from countless other sheep they all start to look the same.

Therefore, they are categorized the same. Its like a blank face with an opening in the lower portion reading from the "How to Look, Act, Sound and Believe Like Everyone Else" handbook.

Don't think of this as a beginning to the end....but the the start of a new beginning....the beginning of the times of enlightenment....

mcBV-cXVWFw

[MannyIsGod]

Its really hard for me to discuss things in threads like this because they eventually come back to one subject for me for which everything in the future will hinge on: Artificial Intelligence.

For me, the person who describes the future best and has a proven track record of making accurate predictions in the matter is Ray Kurzweil. He has laid out the way he sees technology unfolding and has been extremely accurate to this point.

The problem with discussing this subject is that most people don't truly understand that artificial intelligence is not something out of science fiction but something that is going to happen in our lifetimes. I think a lot of this stems from people's perception as human intelligence as something more than what it actually is. Our brains our computers, and while they are more powerful than the computer I am posting this on that does not mean they are the pinnacle of efficiency by any means.

Computing will reach the power of the human brain in the very near future. That won't be the day we have AI, but its stepping stone. Technology grows exponentially. Our early ancestors spent age upon age improving on simple crude tools. We had the stone age, the bronze age, the iron age and many others. But each generation took what was known before and added to it as we add to it today. While it tooks thousands of years to go from a simple crude ax to an arrow it has taken less than 70 to go from the dawn of computing to having computers in nearly in every single facet of our lives. And in 5 years, they'll be even more apparent.

Anyway, with computing power growing so fast it in turn impacts every other facet of human development. Medical improvements improve because of this, mechanical improvements go up as well - virtually everything is improved because of this. Humans will become physically integrated with machines in the (relatively) near term future. its already started. Mechanical hearts, prosthetic limbs anyone? What happens when someone designs a hard drive your brain can interact with? what happens when medical nanotechnology involves nanobots inside your body that can directly interact with your brain? What happens when each person is connect to the internet through themselves?

While many of these concepts may see like science fiction the fact is that there are many projects already underway that are founded in good scientific theory and fact outlying these very ideas. It isn't only plausible, it isn't even only probable its simply a matter of time before they are able to be carried out.

So, with all of that in mind, when much of this is carried out it changes the perception of human life, life expectancy and pretty much the entire understanding of life. It is really hard to understand this future looking through our current understanding of things and it is impossible to see past what is certainly going to be a cultural, philosophical and intellectual revolution of the kind that we've never seen before.

[MannyIsGod]

Also - if you think of an alien species that has already reached this point in technology it is very difficult to understand how they would visit us and if we would even know it or recognize it in our current state. We often project what we expect to see based on what we know of ourselves. IE most popular culture dealing with aliens depicts them as a 2 legged 2 armed humanoid creature with faces and heads much like our own save a few differences. They fly around in spacecraft much like our own and wear clothing like our own. They speak vocally just like us and you could go own forever with the associations.

[peewee's lovechild]

but they are all an attempt to deal with issues that we have faced since the beginning (sin, right and wrong, mercy, etc.) And I suspect that you would agree that pure atheistic naturalism (i.e., no God, we evolved by chance, we die, that's it, tough) cannot provide these answers any better than religion can.

That's assuming sin, right and wrong, and mercy are concepts that are real to everyone. Not everyone is governed by these things, only those who choose to let these things govern them.

[peewee's lovechild]

Its really hard for me to discuss things in threads like this because they eventually come back to one subject for me for which everything in the future will hinge on: Artificial Intelligence.

For me, the person who describes the future best and has a proven track record of making accurate predictions in the matter is Ray Kurzweil. He has laid out the way he sees technology unfolding and has been extremely accurate to this point.

Who is Ray Kurzweil and what has he done?

[peewee's lovechild]

Its really hard for me to discuss things in threads like this because they eventually come back to one subject for me for which everything in the future will hinge on: Artificial Intelligence.

Do you think that AI would be a big blow to people of faith and a victory for atheists?

By that I mean, when make becomes the "Creator" and is able to replicate intelligence, will there be no more use for a personal god?

[DarkReign]

Well, good. I like studying comparative religions as well, and my main area of interest is Islam and the cults (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other strange groups) and the Christian response to them. I don't say that every religion is right or even good, but they are all an attempt to deal with issues that we have faced since the beginning (sin, right and wrong, mercy, etc.)

I have the same interest, only it seems youve actually moved in a scholarly direction in your pursuit. Good on you.


And I suspect that you would agree that pure atheistic naturalism (i.e., no God, we evolved by chance, we die, that's it, tough) cannot provide these answers any better than religion can.

I would agree atheism is an illogical starting point to ponder such things. Ive never identified myself as anything, but if I were narrowed, I would say agnostic (previous posts cited) for the personal pondering of the heavens and death must have some frame of reference.

Athieism is as bland as Elmer's paste. You live, you die, you biodegrate.

If thats true, then we truly are a joke. Only I dont think life is a joke, therefore there must be a commonality to our existence that extends beyond scientific comprehension (as we know it today, at least). Which inherently makes such things very personal.

All of this is why pondering the original intent of this thread brings this topic to the fore-front at some point. Because if there is life outside Earth, certain religions will have to be revised to include such discoveries, or at the very least re-interpreted. Which is a fine alternative for those who hold so dear an institution of control, but a small personal victory to those of us who believed all along that life is bigger than we simple humans, this Earth, this life and the constructs we humans have used to understand the metaphysical is a mere shadow used to screen us from the immensity of our reality.

Again, humans desire control....we all do, shit I know I do. But control is a dirty word to me when referring to the things no one can know and never will, until our departure...and Im not entirely sure death equals enlightenment either, but thats another thread all together.

[DarkReign]

Do you think that AI would be a big blow to people of faith and a victory for atheists?

By that I mean, when make becomes the "Creator" and is able to replicate intelligence, will there be no more use for a personal god?

I will assume you meant this as a question to anyone.

No, I dont think AI affects any religion whatsoever, save for the specific, strict religious figures damning any sort of human creation that can be interpreted as "God-like".

Whether that be cloning, AI or any other unknown discovery that borders on the fine (always moving) line in the sand our predecessors thought to be over-stepping our bounds.

I for one believe no such line exists, that our only limitations are the ones we set for ourselves. Any creation of life/intelligence, artificial or otherwise, should be seen as a blessing from the various religions in my mind. But that would be a hard hill to climb against others who find their current constructs of power and order usurped by the logical advances in science.

[peewee's lovechild]

I will assume you meant this as a question to anyone.

No, I dont think AI affects any religion whatsoever, save for the specific, strict religious figures damning any sort of human creation that can be interpreted as "God-like".

Whether that be cloning, AI or any other unknown discovery that borders on the fine (always moving) line in the sand our predecessors thought to be over-stepping our bounds.

I for one believe no such line exists, that our only limitations are the ones we set for ourselves. Any creation of life/intelligence, artificial or otherwise, should be seen as a blessing from the various religions in my mind. But that would be a hard hill to climb against others who find their current constructs of power and order usurped by the logical advances in science.

I see what you are saying, but wouldn't creating life, by creating artificial intelligence as it were, invalidate the need for a "god"? I mean, if we get to that stage where we can create a sentient being, what would "god's" purpose be?

[DarkReign]

Also - if you think of an alien species that has already reached this point in technology it is very difficult to understand how they would visit us and if we would even know it or recognize it in our current state. We often project what we expect to see based on what we know of ourselves. IE most popular culture dealing with aliens depicts them as a 2 legged 2 armed humanoid creature with faces and heads much like our own save a few differences. They fly around in spacecraft much like our own and wear clothing like our own. They speak vocally just like us and you could go own forever with the associations.

Very true. If we were to make contact with an alien race, they could look very different than our expectations (among the other subtle differences that may exist).

But certain aspects of the evolution of life here on Earth that allowed us to manipulate our environment to our advantage can be projected onto those possible lifeforms of the stars, IMO.

Things like: communication (vocal or otherwise), reproduction (asexual or sexual), mathematics (intergalactic language), opposable thumbs (or the equivalent...if they havent evolved away from such a thing), larger brains (or equivalent), etc.

So, drawing similarities from ourselves onto "them" is entirely plausible. Although I do agree, there is no rule that says they are bipedal vertebrates with closely-set eyes (or what have you). But, it is my belief, there will be similarities nonetheless. It just depends on your personal definition of similar, aesthetic or otherwise.

[Extra Stout]

I see what you are saying, but wouldn't creating life, by creating artificial intelligence as it were, invalidate the need for a "god"? I mean, if we get to that stage where we can create a sentient being, what would "god's" purpose be?
That question can be answered only if one's conception of God is merely in terms of some purpose that he serves for mankind.

[DarkReign]

I see what you are saying, but wouldn't creating life, by creating artificial intelligence as it were, invalidate the need for a "god"? I mean, if we get to that stage where we can create a sentient being, what would "god's" purpose be?

It would seem you hold a bias toward a God of Creation, whether that bias is negative or positive, Ill leave that answer to you.

If positive, God is responsible for your creation (life in general). That importance would be significant to the end of days. Because computers can create new algorithms from known quantities of data, this fact does not decrease the importance of those who created such a computer capable of such a feat. If anything it validates it, IMO.

If negative, then its another notch in the belt of "Reasons God Doesnt Exist".

If neither, then its nothing more than another extension to our ever-blossoming understanding of our world and our ability to influence it in ways outside the physical. As artificial as AI is, if it were able to replicate cognitive thinking and maybe even become self-aware and emotive (this is bordering on the fantastic, btw), it would add perspective to our world view. There would be those who think ourselves as Gods (not good, imo), those who reject such an advance as heretical (also not good) and those who just add it to the collection of discovery as another step toward Total Understanding, a pursuit of perfection everyone knows is not possible but strive for nonetheless.

My opinion, anyway.

[Extra Stout]

Very true. If we were to make contact with an alien race, they could look very different than our expectations (among the other subtle differences that may exist).

But certain aspects of the evolution of life here on Earth that allowed us to manipulate our environment to our advantage can be projected onto those possible lifeforms of the stars, IMO.

Things like: communication (vocal or otherwise), reproduction (asexual or sexual), mathematics (intergalactic language), opposable thumbs (or the equivalent...if they havent evolved away from such a thing), larger brains (or equivalent), etc.

So, drawing similarities from ourselves onto "them" is entirely plausible. Although I do agree, there is no rule that says they are bipedal vertebrates with closely-set eyes (or what have you). But, it is my belief, there will be similarities nonetheless. It just depends on your personal definition of similar, aesthetic or otherwise.
How can you list things like opposable thumbs or enlarged brains when you don't even know whether this hypothetical life is carbon-based, cellular, has genes, DNA, etc.? You can't take anything for granted in projecting characteristics of earth-based life onto the hypothetical extraterrestrial. We might not even be able to recognize it as a life form.

[DarkReign]

How can you list things like opposable thumbs or enlarged brains when you don't even know whether this hypothetical life is carbon-based, cellular, has genes, DNA, etc.? You can't take anything for granted in projecting characteristics of earth-based life onto the hypothetical extraterrestrial. We might not even be able to recognize it as a life form.

Eh...good point. Youre right, I definitely assumed a carbon-based, organic lifeform.

But is that as big a stretch of the imagination as is some floating, 4th dimensional being(s) of intellect without a body?

I dont even know if thats entirely possible. Do you?

[Extra Stout]

Eh...good point. Youre right, I definitely assumed a carbon-based, organic lifeform.

But is that as big a stretch of the imagination as is some floating, 4th dimensional being(s) of intellect without a body?

I dont even know if thats entirely possible. Do you?
I'm loath to make declarative statements based upon nothing but speculations emanating from my feeble, limited mind. I have no idea what is or is not possible. I do believe in a spiritual realm with spiritual beings, and anything that can be conceived in this realm pales to that.

[DarkReign]

I'm loath to make declarative statements based upon nothing but speculations emanating from my feeble, limited mind. I have no idea what is or is not possible. I do believe in a spiritual realm with spiritual beings, and anything that can be conceived in this realm pales to that.

Fair enough. With such a fantastic belief of things, I can understand why you wouldnt go out on a limb unsolicited.

So let me solicit you...

Assume said lifeform is a carbon-based organism, what assumptions could one make about them?

[MannyIsGod]

Who is Ray Kurzweil and what has he done?

He's an inventor first and foremost. He's also a technology expert and has written several books on the subject of AI. The first was the age of intelligent machines in which he laid out the development of the internet and persaonl computing. Then he wrote The Age of Spiritual Machines which had much more to do with the development of AI and his latest book is about the emergence of AI within the next century and provides an updated roadmap of how we'll get there. His predictions are uncanny and he explains him self very well.

It is all very dry reading (I have yet to read his latest book) but if you can have the patience to read through it a couple of times it is an interesting perspective on how he sees things playing out.

[MannyIsGod]

Do you think that AI would be a big blow to people of faith and a victory for atheists?

By that I mean, when make becomes the "Creator" and is able to replicate intelligence, will there be no more use for a personal god?

I wasn't aware atheists were fighting and needed a victory. Faith is something everyone must answer for themselves. I'm sure that a change that big to our society will leave lasting effects on nearly every facet of our lives but I do not believe it will by any means be an eradication of religion. No other intellectual revolution in our past has managed to do so, and I"m not sure this would be any different.

Religion - just like every other part of humanity - is constantly evolving and would probably do just that in the face of a change of this nature.

[MannyIsGod]

Very true. If we were to make contact with an alien race, they could look very different than our expectations (among the other subtle differences that may exist).

But certain aspects of the evolution of life here on Earth that allowed us to manipulate our environment to our advantage can be projected onto those possible lifeforms of the stars, IMO.

Things like: communication (vocal or otherwise), reproduction (asexual or sexual), mathematics (intergalactic language), opposable thumbs (or the equivalent...if they havent evolved away from such a thing), larger brains (or equivalent), etc.

So, drawing similarities from ourselves onto "them" is entirely plausible. Although I do agree, there is no rule that says they are bipedal vertebrates with closely-set eyes (or what have you). But, it is my belief, there will be similarities nonetheless. It just depends on your personal definition of similar, aesthetic or otherwise.

I think you missed my point.

The human body is a machine. What separates it from what we normally consider machines are several things but it is undeniable that our bodies are just as mechanical as any machine that does the same function. We are self aware machines. Its a non romantic way of looking at our species and it really doesn't fit our need for self importance but when broken down thats what it really comes down to.

If a machine we build is able to become self aware, then what defines a life form? An organic body or the mind? If its the mind, then who's to say alien civilizations even have a need for a body?