Edited by Anekanta - killed by a cacodemon at 09/25/09 3:17 PM
Anekanta - killed by a cacodemon was starred
Anekanta - killed by a cacodemon was unstarred
I'm fascinated by the philosophical transition here... It used to be that life in the universe was so improbable that Earth was the only possible place it could be. Now, life in the universe is so probable that it's making life on Earth look more and more impossible. Of course, I say this is all philosophical because, regardless of your speculations, Earth is still the only place we know of with life.
@Cory Gross: Yeah, it's sounding like instead of a "Goldilocks Zone" we're in more of a "Rumpelstiltzkin" situation... Locked in a tiny room, a power-mad king (hot sun) breathing down our necks, trying to spin straw into gold while tiny dwarf-creatures mock us from afar.
The dwarves, of course, are aliens who evolved in much higher gravity-- hence their short stature.
Cory Gross promoted this comment
brentbent: C.O.C.K.R.O.A.C.H. )for all the queer super villians out there( was starred
brentbent: C.O.C.K.R.O.A.C.H. )for all the queer super villians out there( was unstarred
Look, honestly? With lip service and apologies to all of the experts we hear from every week:
Given the immense frigging size of this universe we live in, I would not be surprised...no, actually let me rephrase that: I will bet cash freaking money on the fact that there is a damn-near-duplicate copy of this rock we live on with people who look exactly like us.
Write a "1" on a billboard sized piece of paper and then start writing zeros next to it for about 3 or 4 months. Look at that number. That probably doesn't cover the number of planets out there. How could it not be possible?
@kolacek: Actually, A more recent estimate of the number of stars in the universe has it around 7*10^22 ([www.space.com]). If our solar system is average in having 8 or 9 planets but only one or two of which may be in a 'habitable zone' you're still only looking at somewhere around 10^23 potentially habitable planets in the universe. The number is absolutely gigantic, but not as long to write out as you make it seem. Here, let me do it for you: 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Even if we turn out to be a small-ish solar system and most had far more planets than ours, or larger habitable zones, it's unlikely we'd see any number larger than adding one more zero to that figure.
Oh I think i get it. Life, like super powers, can only arise from the primordial ooze due to the side effects of a Cold War. If those stars hadn't been competing against one another for universal supremacy we wouldn't even be here.
@ParryLost: Radiation causes mutations. If the mutation is a benefit (helps the organism out compete its neighbors in finding food or other resources), the individual with that mutation lives to pass the mutation on to its offspring.
@simonbarsinister: How dare Scientists make assumptions about life on other planets! The fact is we have have not even scrathed the surface of understanding the universe, all we they have is speculation.
Let's see here, "The Sun does not SEEM like the perfect star for a system where life might arise. Although it is hard to argue with the Sun's ‘success' as it so far is the only star known to host a planet with life...."
Also "Jean-Mathias Grießmeier of ASTRON's research similarly suggests that the Earth may not be an ideal planet for the formation and development of life. Grießmeier examined planetary magnetic fields, finding that a planet with a stronger magnetic field is less likely to have its atmosphere blown away..."
Those are two examples, did you not read the article?? Ivory Tower, really? When you get your PhD in Astronomy or AstroPhysics Let's hear what ideas you come up with.
Ivory tower? It seems to be you're on a much higher tower than they are. Why are you so upset about speculation that other types of suns might be more conducive to producing life than ours? Is that somehow offensive to you?
@L3G10N: I think simon is simply noting the disconnect between the hypothesis that the Sun is a relatively poor and unlikely sustainer of life compared to other types of stars and the observed fact that the Sun is the only star we know of to have sustained life. Until we have enough samples to calculate probability based on observed fact, this sort of hypothesizing comes across as angels dancing on the head of a pin.
It's quite possible that the laws of physics simply won't allow the human race practical large scale interstellar technological means of transportation. The Speed of Light limit will never be broken and that is the biggest problem,
@SnehalMarten: Faster than Light travel is not a necessity for interstellar exploration. Two alternative possibilities are cryogenics or simply artificially enhanced life spans. A less relevant alternative, at least in my opinion, are generation ships.
@SnehalMarten: It is quite possible that interstellar travel will not be done in a physical way. The Speed of Light applies only to things with mass. So sidestep mass. You're not thinking with portals.
Dr.Quatermass: I have to say Dr. You are once again spot on with that oberservation and anything I am about to say that contradicts this statement is strictly for humor sake. was starred
Dr.Quatermass: I have to say Dr. You are once again spot on with that oberservation and anything I am about to say that contradicts this statement is strictly for humor sake. was unstarred
@SnehalMarten: Physical matter cannot break the speed of light rule but information can and does. The universe can instantly transmit information across the universe regardless of distances involved. All we have to do is translate our physical selves into information and then we can be sent anywhere in the universe where the technology exists to reassemble the information. This is a fact proved by experiments and not some wild eyed speculation. I can't remember all the details, but the experiment involved splitting a particle (or something) in half, which caused those two new particles to move away from one another on a mirrored path and, here's the cool part, if one particle is influenced by a gravitational force that alters its trajectory the other particle immediately corrects its course so their trajectories remain mirrored. That can only happen if the information itself wasn't localized and not limited by the restraints of time and space.
Dr.Quatermass promoted this comment
brentbent: C.O.C.K.R.O.A.C.H. )for all the queer super villians out there( was starred
brentbent: C.O.C.K.R.O.A.C.H. )for all the queer super villians out there( was unstarred
"...leading to a runaway greenhouse effect in less than 2 billion years."
There you have it, proof that global warming isn't caused by humans and that there's nothing we can do about it! No use going "green" if it's futile in the long run.
So, we are not the best of all possible worlds? Then again, for intelligent life as we know it there may be other factors. For instance, some kind of closed circulatory system may be needed (some kind of blood, rather than the open system of insects). Higher gravity might make that harder to achieve. Or maybe a better magnetic field slows down the mutation rate. If I could learn things from the future, the laws of xenobiology would come a close second to the fate of humanity in general.
@The Curse of Millhaven: Of course this is the best of all possible universes, Candide. We just need to cultivate our garden.
Actually you have a good point. Lauren's story discusses conditions favoring development of life but not those favoring development of complex or intelligent life. Certainly gravity is more of a problem for larger life forms and land dwellers.
@The Curse of Millhaven: Hehe, I like your Leibniz reference (Best of All Possible Worlds.) I myself can not help but to drop the reference "we are not unique snowflakes" from the movie Fight Club.
The earth's not perfect, but its not a bad starter planet. We're still young. When we're all grown up we'll move into a nicer solar system in one of the good parts of the galaxy.
09/27/09
The question is... WHICH ONE?
09/26/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
09/25/09
NASA gives us such nice pictures.
09/25/09
09/25/09
...unless you don't live in the US, then you are a thief! A common thief!
09/25/09
08/13/09
They'll be here next Tuesday.
08/13/09
08/13/09
The dwarves, of course, are aliens who evolved in much higher gravity-- hence their short stature.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
Given the immense frigging size of this universe we live in, I would not be surprised...no, actually let me rephrase that: I will bet cash freaking money on the fact that there is a damn-near-duplicate copy of this rock we live on with people who look exactly like us.
Write a "1" on a billboard sized piece of paper and then start writing zeros next to it for about 3 or 4 months. Look at that number. That probably doesn't cover the number of planets out there. How could it not be possible?
08/13/09
08/13/09
Oh I think i get it. Life, like super powers, can only arise from the primordial ooze due to the side effects of a Cold War. If those stars hadn't been competing against one another for universal supremacy we wouldn't even be here.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
All of the actual evidence we have says that RIGHT HERE is the best possible world for life. It's the ONLY EXAMPLE we have that has worked.
Go back to your ivory tower until you have a second sample to base your ideas on.
08/13/09
Let's see here, "The Sun does not SEEM like the perfect star for a system where life might arise. Although it is hard to argue with the Sun's ‘success' as it so far is the only star known to host a planet with life...."
Also "Jean-Mathias Grießmeier of ASTRON's research similarly suggests that the Earth may not be an ideal planet for the formation and development of life. Grießmeier examined planetary magnetic fields, finding that a planet with a stronger magnetic field is less likely to have its atmosphere blown away..."
Those are two examples, did you not read the article?? Ivory Tower, really? When you get your PhD in Astronomy or AstroPhysics Let's hear what ideas you come up with.
08/13/09
Ivory tower? It seems to be you're on a much higher tower than they are. Why are you so upset about speculation that other types of suns might be more conducive to producing life than ours? Is that somehow offensive to you?
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
But really though, if you believe you will never do something than you most definitely never will.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
There you have it, proof that global warming isn't caused by humans and that there's nothing we can do about it! No use going "green" if it's futile in the long run.
/sarcasm.
08/13/09
08/13/09
Actually you have a good point. Lauren's story discusses conditions favoring development of life but not those favoring development of complex or intelligent life. Certainly gravity is more of a problem for larger life forms and land dwellers.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09