Is There Another Earth? (serious)

[MartinLiss]

So that means that there is more than one heaven?

[dclamp]

Heaven is plural. Heavens...

[Lord Orwell]

Taking a Biblical View, There is only one Earth...

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." - Genesis 1:1

Notice it says "earth" not "earths"

doesn't it also say something about the sons of god in there somewhere?

So that means that there is more than one heaven?

In this particular sense, they were not actually talking about that meaning of the word heaven. It is also used interchangeably with the word sky. So he created the sky and his home.

I am particularly interested to see why in cain and abel, the first two children of adam and eve, it clearly states he doesn't want a mark on his head because when he leaves the garden, everyone else will see it and kill him. Who are all these other people?!? adam and eve were the first ones, right?

and of course, heaven is in the center of the galaxy. looks like a black hole.

[MartinLiss]

I understand that heavens is plural. So is this like the discussion of whether or not there is more than one universe? In other words is there more than one heaven?

[KTech]

OK, so some book written on our earth says there is only one earth. Realizing of course this book was written in a time when even travelling in the air by flying was impossible and the earth was the center of the universe and it was flat. I don't see how any religious texts have any bearing on an argument that was sticking mostly to scientific lines.

[EntityX]

I think there is only one earth. There's only one me and one you. We are each unique persons and each planet is unique also. That doesn't mean that God created a universe that only has one planet with intelligent beings.

On the subject of whether there is more than one heaven I would say that there is. Jesus said, "In my Father's house there are many mansions." John 14:2

[dclamp]

I understand that heavens is plural. So is this like the discussion of whether or not there is more than one universe? In other words is there more than one heaven?

Heaven is one place, but i believe it is like a State, for example, There are many counties/cities/etc within California, but they are all still California.

So there are many Heavens, but collectively, there is one.

[Code Doc]

I think there is only one earth. There's only one me and one you. We are each unique persons and each planet is unique also. That doesn't mean that God created a universe that only has one planet with intelligent beings.

On the subject of whether there is more than one heaven I would say that there is. Jesus said, "In my Father's house there are many mansions." John 14:2

+1. However, it appears that there may be only one planet anywhere in the universe that even resembles earth. We are living on it.

[MartinLiss]

I think there is only one earth. There's only one me and one you. We are each unique persons and each planet is unique also. That doesn't mean that God created a universe that only has one planet with intelligent beings.

On the subject of whether there is more than one heaven I would say that there is. Jesus said, "In my Father's house there are many mansions." John 14:2

Ah, the many-heavens theory

[dclamp]

Ah, the many-heavens theory

I asked a good friend about your question. He said "The word Heavens in Hebrew is translated into english as plural, That word heavens though is talking about space and the cosmos or everything we see when we look into the night sky. It is not talking about the Heaven that we will go and be with Jesus someday with. The words are different and are translated into english really bad."

[Resilience]

There is no doubt of multiple dimensions. Ghosts exist, obviously not in the same dimension that we do. They are direct and physical evidence. They also prove dimensions can be traveled "through" or crossed over, however you want to look at it. The range we can see out of the electromagnetic spectrum is quite small. All that it takes is an object's atoms to viberate at a higher or lower frequency to be completely invisible to us.


You guys had better stay away from heaven and religion you'll turn this topic into 50 pages over night lol.

If god made us who made god?

Let the Debate Begin! lol

[dclamp]

God has always existed.

[Resilience]

I was just kidding, logically thats the only answer.

[Lord Orwell]

I was just kidding, logically thats the only answer.

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

[zaza]

+1. However, it appears that there may be only one planet anywhere in the universe that even resembles earth. We are living on it.

To bring this back towards the topic....



Why does this surprise you? The current state of our planet in the Universe is the sum of all the events that have taken place in its history...every decision, every bug stepped on by a stegosaurus, every rogue quantum event. The chances of there being a planet EXACTLY the same as ours somewhere else in the Universe are vanishingly small; I don't know why somebody would even suggest it.
So the question is, how close a resemblance is "resembles"? In the sense that there's ocean and land? I reckon the answer is "almost certainly". H2O is a pretty basic molecule requiring two low-proton elements which were synthesized pretty early on in the history of the Universe; they're literally everywhere. It's a bold assertion to suggest that nowhere else in the entire Universe has a temperature between 0 and 100 C.
As for the rest of it, about what form life might take, there's no possible way of knowing. Life evolves in its environment, and any other environment is going to require different adaptations. Natural selection ensures it. Is it going to have legs and hair? No way to tell. Is it going to even have DNA? Who knows; again that's the mechanism for reproducing life that has evolved HERE, under the environmental conditions on EARTH.
None of what we know about life suggests that our model is a universal blueprint. But the fact that it can happen by random chance under our conditions in no way precludes it from happening by random chance under different conditions.

[Lord Orwell]

To bring this back towards the topic....



Why does this surprise you? The current state of our planet in the Universe is the sum of all the events that have taken place in its history...every decision, every bug stepped on by a stegosaurus, every rogue quantum event. The chances of there being a planet EXACTLY the same as ours somewhere else in the Universe are vanishingly small; I don't know why somebody would even suggest it.
So the question is, how close a resemblance is "resembles"? In the sense that there's ocean and land? I reckon the answer is "almost certainly". H2O is a pretty basic molecule requiring two low-proton elements which were synthesized pretty early on in the history of the Universe; they're literally everywhere. It's a bold assertion to suggest that nowhere else in the entire Universe has a temperature between 0 and 100 C.
As for the rest of it, about what form life might take, there's no possible way of knowing. Life evolves in its environment, and any other environment is going to require different adaptations. Natural selection ensures it. Is it going to have legs and hair? No way to tell. Is it going to even have DNA? Who knows; again that's the mechanism for reproducing life that has evolved HERE, under the environmental conditions on EARTH.
None of what we know about life suggests that our model is a universal blueprint. But the fact that it can happen by random chance under our conditions in no way precludes it from happening by random chance under different conditions.

Saturn's moon Titan just made the news again. They just announced more errors in their calculations. According to their current models, it couldn't have storms, but it has one right now.

[Code Doc]

Saturn's moon Titan just made the news again. They just announced more errors in their calculations. According to their current models, it couldn't have storms, but it has one right now.

Storms on Titan? Heck, LO, the sun also has sunspots that influence the weather or earth. Venus probably has storms galore beneath a hostile atmosphere that could never support life on any position on the planet.

[Pradeep1210]

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

Things that have no logic and you want everyone to believe, just put it in religion. They would just believe it in the name of religion.

[Lord Orwell]

Storms on Titan? Heck, LO, the sun also has sunspots that influence the weather or earth. Venus probably has storms galore beneath a hostile atmosphere that could never support life on any position on the planet.

since we have never actually been there with a decent probe, i would ask what gives you this idea? Pretty much all we know for sure is the composition of the atmosphere in one location and the surface temperature. Even here on earth, we have organisms that are unlike any other. There is a bacteria that lives in the ocean by volcanic vents that converts hydrogen sulfide to energy. In other words, it eats hydrosulfuric acid. is there a more inhospital place besides this for life in the universe? an acid bath?

[zaza]

Saturn's moon Titan just made the news again. They just announced more errors in their calculations. According to their current models, it couldn't have storms, but it has one right now.

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.



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.

[Lord Orwell]

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.



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.

[BillGeek]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

This dude will agree with you completely:

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

That actually made me chuckle.

[Lord Orwell]

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

[Resilience]

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.

[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."

[Lord Orwell]

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.

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.

[zaza]

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.

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.....

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.

[xt3mp0r]

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
I'm eagerly waiting to shake my hands with them and feel lucky, lol.

[Lord Orwell]

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.

[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.

[EntityX]

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?

[Code Doc]

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?

[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.

[dee-u]

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.

[EntityX]

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.

[Lord Orwell]

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.

[zaza]

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.

[Code Doc]

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.

[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?

[visualAd]

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?

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.