Is There Another Earth? (serious)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

Your point?

Scientists in inaccurate model shock!? We can never trust these guys again! Entire foundation of world's trust in science collapses, millions flock to churches and mosques. Repent, ye sinners.

:rolleyes:

I'm sure there are plenty of people who take that view, just as there are plenty who are glad for the opportunity to refine the models.

---

my point was there is a scientific model for everything, sometimes more than one. And this includes the creation of life. Trying to quantify however many requirements, and there is life on our own planet that doesn't require a large portion of the list. One of the reasons Titan was eliminated in the past from "life supporting" was the frozen waste it was. Then, later, it is shown to have oceans but no weather. Now it has weather patterns. Pretty soon it will be shown to have weathermen. quid pro quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Code Doc

There is no proof anywhere that there is more than one universe. That's a bunch of double talk. The universe is everything, by definition.

---

Google for Multiverse. I'm too lazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Code Doc

On the other hand, we have documented the required properties to replicate the earth.

---

True, though I tend not to agree with scientists on this. While we might require 20 conditions to live on planet Earth, that does not mean that all biological life throughout the universe will. We need oxygen, sunlight, temperature, water, etc... From studies on Earth, scientists believe that these are the required components for life. how can they be sure that life can't exist with elements that they don't know of? I'm not saying that this IS the case, but it's a possibility, right?

Zaza's post brings this point across quite brilliantly, plus like Mendhak said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

You're treating life like it's some giant if statement. Again, let me point out the anthropic principle. You're assuming repeatedly that life needs to be formed exactly as it was here on Earth. Maybe that's the concept that you need to grasp - there are no other humans out there. That's something from Star Trek and Star Wars. Life can take on any form. But that's the limitation we suffer from living on Earth and never having traveled to other systems. A moving blob of liquid can actually be an intelligent life form.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max

It strikes me as incredibly arrogant to assume that we are the only intelligent lifeform in the entire universe. And kind of sad, too, if it were true. So much space, and beauty, and potential in the vastness of space.

---

Indeed. I still believe that there MUST be life somewhere in space. Given the size of the universe, it would actually be very surprising if we are alone. Let's go smaller. The size of the Milky Way compared to the size of our solar system is extreme. I would bet that there MIGHT just be at least one other intelligent race somewhere in the galaxy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

what has logic have to do with religion? Logic is why many people do NOT believe.

---

This dude will agree with you completely:
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/me...-Tuvok2377.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

Pretty soon it will be shown to have weathermen. quid pro quo.

---

:lol: That actually made me chuckle. :D

read me http://www.newsweek.com/id/212018?GT1=43002

Quote:

---

what has logic have to do with religion?

---

Technically the bible isnt a magical fairy tale. Technically theres a scientific structure to explain any and all miracles. A miracle itself is simply an event that is beyond our current scientific understanding. That doesnt mean there is no scientific explanation at all.

In my opinion of course.

Logically whats the answer to life? Theres only A or B.
A - God and/or Universe has always existed.
B - God and/or Universe one day popped out of thin nothing for no reason.

One of those two have to be true...Soo why wouldnt there be multiple universes? Space is obviously infinate.

I believe that God always existed and God is the cause of the universe which was brought into existence by God.

Lord Orwell says what has logic have to do with religion? I say it has much to do with it. I say it's much more logical that the universe has an uncaused cause(God) than that the universe came into existence without a cause. Here's a quote from Anthony Robbins. "To say that there is no source of intelligence that we may call God is like saying Webster's Dictionary is the result of an explosion in a print factory and everything came together perfectly and in balance."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resilience

Technically the bible isnt a magical fairy tale. Technically theres a scientific structure to explain any and all miracles. A miracle itself is simply an event that is beyond our current scientific understanding. That doesnt mean there is no scientific explanation at all.

In my opinion of course.

Logically whats the answer to life? Theres only A or B.
A - God and/or Universe has always existed.
B - God and/or Universe one day popped out of thin nothing for no reason.

One of those two have to be true...Soo why wouldnt there be multiple universes? Space is obviously infinate.

---

it's not infinite. It in fact wraps around on itself. If you head in one direction long enough you eventually get back where you started. I am surprised you didn't realize there is a size based on the fact it is expanding. How can something infinitely big be getting bigger?

As for your other argument, a or b? Both of your arguments imply that time has always existed, which everyone agrees is not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

I believe that God always existed and God is the cause of the universe which was brought into existence by God.

Lord Orwell says what has logic have to do with religion? I say it has much to do with it. I say it's much more logical that the universe has an uncaused cause(God) than that the universe came into existence without a cause. Here's a quote from Anthony Robbins. "To say that there is no source of intelligence that we may call God is like saying Webster's Dictionary is the result of an explosion in a print factory and everything came together perfectly and in balance."

---

of course there's the whole argument that makes this point irrelevent: If it wasn't in balance and hospitable for life, we wouldn't be here to ask why it is in balance. It has to be in balance to make the question possible in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

it's not infinite. It in fact wraps around on itself. If you head in one direction long enough you eventually get back where you started.

---

Speculation. Not a fact. Just one theory amongst many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

As for your other argument, a or b? Both of your arguments imply that time has always existed, which everyone agrees is not the case.

---

Personally, agreed, but not everyone agrees on this either.

The use of the word "always" implies some sort of time-related function itself. A lot of big-bang-esque theories incorporate time into the structure of the Universe, therefore it makes no sense to say "what happened before...?" Time didn't exist...hence use of the word "before" is not appropriate; it implicitly applies the concept of time to time itself. It is another of those questions that sound like they are reasonable, but in fact may be meaningless. Such as "Why is blue?", or.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

of course there's the whole argument that makes this point irrelevent: If it wasn't in balance and hospitable for life, we wouldn't be here to ask why it is in balance. It has to be in balance to make the question possible in the first place.

---

There doesn't always have to be a why, except in the English alphabet.

If there are so many galaxies and the universe seems to be much much bigger..it's quite obvious to believe that life may exist at another planet, likely like we live on earth.

Scientist must do something serious to find those folks fast :D
I'm eagerly waiting to shake my hands with them and feel lucky, lol.

Quote:

---

Speculation. Not a fact. Just one theory amongst many.

---

i may be wrong, but i seem to remember someone being able to detect the curve. In any case, if it doesn't wrap around on itself, then it must have an edge. If it has an edge then surely there is a way to pass through it. Think about soap bubbles. the film separates the contents. if you pass through the wall of one, you would be in another one. Personally i think that even if there are other universes, the dividing wall is not in our dimension. It seems to make sense that if you have three dimensions off of a fourth(time), then you should be able to have something resembling a family tree branching every time you add another dimension.
the minimum (based on memory) of dimensions we are supposed to have is 7, so i think it is reasonable to assume other universes may share the other dimensions with us.

A few years ago, somebody detected the signature of what appeared to be the same quasar coming from two different directions; the suggestion being that light from it was travelling in two different directions around the Universe to get to us, supporting the theory of a closed system.
There may or may not be an edge. It's an awfully long way away, and moving very fast, so who knows if it is possible to pass through it.
Personally, I suspect that the Universe is a closed system in 3 dimensions, much like the surface of a sphere is closed in 2. There are, indeed, many different postulations for the nature of the underlying topography of the Universe as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

i may be wrong, but i seem to remember someone being able to detect the curve. In any case, if it doesn't wrap around on itself, then it must have an edge.

---

Why must it have an edge. If you admit space and time as a reality and say that they really exist then why isn't infinite space a possibility. To me infinite space actually makes more sense than finite space. If space has an edge then what about what is beyond that edge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

A few years ago, somebody detected the signature of what appeared to be the same quasar coming from two different directions; the suggestion being that light from it was travelling in two different directions around the Universe to get to us, supporting the theory of a closed system.
There may or may not be an edge. It's an awfully long way away, and moving very fast, so who knows if it is possible to pass through it.
Personally, I suspect that the Universe is a closed system in 3 dimensions, much like the surface of a sphere is closed in 2. There are, indeed, many different postulations for the nature of the underlying topography of the Universe as well.

---

I have two questions:

If the unverse is expanding, then it must be expanding at less than the speed of light, because nothing travels faster than that. Correct? In other words, warp 1 (in Star Trek terminology) is the real limit of all velocity. Do you agree?

If you believe that, then any flash of light that you saw that passed you by can never be seen again as anything but a reflection because you will never outrun it to see it again. Does that make sense?

Isn't thought faster than light. I can think of the earth and then an instant later I can think of a star that is light years away. My thought has traveled faster than light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

Isn't thought faster than light. I can think of the earth and then an instant later I can think of a star that is light years away. My thought has traveled faster than light.

---

Your thought is still in your brain, it didn't move. :bigyello:

But what if it just appears that it's in your brain. Maybe it's really omnipresent. Maybe all of us are really omnipresent but we just think we're localized in a body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Code Doc

I have two questions:

If the unverse is expanding, then it must be expanding at less than the speed of light, because nothing travels faster than that. Correct? In other words, warp 1 (in Star Trek terminology) is the real limit of all velocity. Do you agree?

If you believe that, then any flash of light that you saw that passed you by can never be seen again as anything but a reflection because you will never outrun it to see it again. Does that make sense?

---

the speed of light inside the universe has no basis on the universe itself. the universe makes the rules. It is not bound by them. Besides which you would be suggesting motion to this expansion when in fact no movement is involved. However the expansion itself is detectable by redshift in light waves. The most distant galaxies are receding from us at an average relative velocity of approximately one third the speed of light.

There is a lot of funny business involved in internal velocities. if two spaceships leave a set point and travel 2/3 the speed of light in opposite directions, it would seem that their relative velocity to each other is greater than the speed of light. But for relativistic reasons, this is not the case. Time dilation affects the perception of those involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Code Doc

I have two questions:

If the unverse is expanding, then it must be expanding at less than the speed of light, because nothing travels faster than that. Correct? In other words, warp 1 (in Star Trek terminology) is the real limit of all velocity. Do you agree?

If you believe that, then any flash of light that you saw that passed you by can never be seen again as anything but a reflection because you will never outrun it to see it again. Does that make sense?

---

1) We have good theoretical reason to believe that the speed of light is a universal limit, and so far there has been no experimental evidence to contradict this

2) Technically, if you see a flash of light then that photon has been absorbed by whatever your measuring apparatus is, so you can never actually see the same photon twice. But yes, once a photon has passed me by then I am never going to be able to catch up with it and position some measuring apparatus so as to detect it. This thought does not worry me unduly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

1) We have good theoretical reason to believe that the speed of light is a universal limit, and so far there has been no experimental evidence to contradict this

2) Technically, if you see a flash of light then that photon has been absorbed by whatever your measuring apparatus is, so you can never actually see the same photon twice. But yes, once a photon has passed me by then I am never going to be able to catch up with it and position some measuring apparatus so as to detect it. This thought does not worry me unduly.

---

Well, we are on the same wavelength. Note that we have found nothing that travels faster than the speed of light. One trouble I see is that many people wached Star Trek and suddenly thought warp 8 and higher was within reach. That was absurd and promised travel to other galaxies within a lifetime--a total figment of the imagination.

I also think "billions of galaxies" is another figment. How many have we actually found? Multiply that by a 1,000 and you have a long way to go to even reach 100 million, let alone a billion.

In short, it is far easier for me to believe that no other earth or a planet that even resembles earth exists.

Even if you found 1 galaxy per second, counting up to 1 billion would take 30 years. That's not how astronomy works - it's based on estimates on the 'clustering' and density of objects in an observable part of the night sky.

How many grains of sand on the planet? I've only ever seen 200 grains. Have we actually counted them? :ehh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Even if you found 1 galaxy per second, counting up to 1 billion would take 30 years. That's not how astronomy works - it's based on estimates on the 'clustering' and density of objects in an observable part of the night sky.

How many grains of sand on the planet? I've only ever seen 200 grains. Have we actually counted them? :ehh:

---

I have never heard of such tosh. I counted all the sand yesterday and I am gonna do the same today. Give such things time, you expect too much and wait for the verification otherwise I will end up supplying the wrong answer. :wave:

visualAd always lets me down.

mendhak, however, is correct. If you pick a random few arcseconds of sky , get a big telescope and see what you can see, you'll be able to count the number and types of star and galaxy visible in that region.
Repeat a lot of times. Get an average. There's a crude estimate.

Of course, it gets more complicated than this as there is some underlying distribution...there are not the same number of galaxies in any given direction, although broadly there are a lot of similarities..

Look up the Hubble Deep Field survey and the Hubble Ultra Deep Field survey.
Given the the Deep Field survey covers, to quote the page, the area of sky obscured by a tennis ball at 100m, how can you look at that image and not be completely astounded. It's not fake, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's an actual image of what's going on out there in the big wide Universe. Amazing!
Incidentally, the count of the Deep Field image is >1500 galaxies in approximately 1 in 28 millionths of the sky. Which leads to a rough estimate of 42 billion galaxies. And that's within the visible sphere afforded by Hubble. There is plenty of Universe further away than Hubble can see.

Oh no, I've been adam-rolled! :eek:

:cry: Save me from the evil man

Zaza said, "Incidentally, the count of the Deep Field image is >1500 galaxies in approximately 1 in 28 millionths of the sky. Which leads to a rough estimate of 42 billion galaxies. And that's within the visible sphere afforded by Hubble. There is plenty of Universe further away than Hubble can see."
--------------------
That means we need to start naming these galaxies for the archives. If there are at least 42 billion of them, it will be interesting to see how that is done to obtain unique names that we can all pronounce.

It may take a ruling by the government and a grant from the Gates foundation to get it started. Now, if one of these galaxies is found to contain a planet that resembles ours, should we call it Earth II or perhaps Earth Angel?

However, I am not sure how we are ever going to ascertain the existence of this other earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Code Doc

Zaza said, "Incidentally, the count of the Deep Field image is >1500 galaxies in approximately 1 in 28 millionths of the sky. Which leads to a rough estimate of 42 billion galaxies. And that's within the visible sphere afforded by Hubble. There is plenty of Universe further away than Hubble can see."
--------------------
That means we need to start naming these galaxies for the archives. If there are at least 42 billion of them, it will be interesting to see how that is done to obtain unique names that we can all pronounce.

It may take a ruling by the government and a grant from the Gates foundation to get it started. Now, if one of these galaxies is found to contain a planet that resembles ours, should we call it Earth II or perhaps Earth Angel?

However, I am not sure how we are ever going to ascertain the existence of this other earth.

---

i see no reason to name them all. The stars themselves 99% of the time just have greek-alphabet designations based on their relative brightness in the constellation they exist in. Stars that are not normally visible to the naked eye don't even have this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

i see no reason to name them all. The stars themselves 99% of the time just have greek-alphabet designations based on their relative brightness in the constellation they exist in. Stars that are not normally visible to the naked eye don't even have this.

---

Well, I suppose we could use a 20-digit number to preserve uniqueness or a system of letter and number combinations, similar to passwords and serial numbers.

Being able to pronounce the name is perhaps irrelevant. We can simply reserve those for objects judged visible to the naked eye. If we make no attempt to name the heavenly bodies, how does person A discuss obect X with person B?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Code Doc

Well, I suppose we could use a 20-digit number to preserve uniqueness or a system of letter and number combinations, similar to passwords and serial numbers.

Being able to pronounce the name is perhaps irrelevant. We can simply reserve those for objects judged visible to the naked eye. If we make no attempt to name the heavenly bodies, how does person A discuss obect X with person B?

---

pretty much the way we do now. The first thing you do is narrow it down by constellation. A star chart will show you that the entire sky is divided into constellations with nothing left over. As an interesting side-note, it will also tell you that the dates we are actually in a certain constellation has very little correlation with horoscope dates, due to the fact they are all different sizes.

After that, it's a matter of degrees of movement from the known object.

But... Do you remember the "star registry"? I have no idea if it was a legitimate organization or not, but you could "name a star after someone" to show you care. For a reasonable price, of course.