Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
690
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 00:51:00 -
[31] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Grimpak wrote:it's all in the eye of the beholder. what one must know is, if you find intelligent life, prepare to be surprised, because it might not even have eyes, legs, arms or even mouths. it might even be a blob that breathes sulphur and communicates thru telepathy or any other type of communication method we don't know, nor even dream about. Inventive... but again... No. Allow me to shed some reality on this. Earth began as a planet that hosted a variety of primordial life forms that would seem very alien in our modern age. You can see them in the ponds of Yellowstone and in sea floor magma vents. They metabolized things that we would consider toxic, and some of them have metabolic processes that until recently, science thought was impossible. All of these life forms were phased out by life forms that utilized the sun as an energy source. It was much more plentiful and much more abundant then any other form of consumption, and the by product was oxygen. Oxygen is extremely toxic to the predecessors of photosynthesis, and as they became more successful everything else was poisoned, replaced and died out. Neither Can Generate Intelligence "Sulfur breathers" for lack of a better term would not have enough energy to support complex biological processes that involve high energy. Photosynthesis also, is not high enough energy to support intelligence. Oxygen is key. Oxygen is free energy. It is a highly reactive gas that allows us to monopolize on the reactivity of said gas. It is that energy that allows us to burn the fuel required for complex thought and complex biological processes. So before you go spouting how "other beings can breath "insert randomness" consider what you are actually saying. Does said gas have enough raw reactive energy to be as effective as oxygen in the first place? Do you even know how many gases, if any, can be used in place of oxygen? Or are you just letting your creativity run away with you like so many others that came before you? That is probably the case since you mentioned alien telepathy in a discussion about the likelihood of intelligent life vs non-intelligent life occurring in the universe. look, all I'm saying is, just because we are, doesn't mean that aliens are as well. maybe they do use a less reactive gas, or even an even more reactive gas like sodium in gas form.
also, considering sulfur, there are sulfate-reducing bacteria right here in this world. wouldn't it be correct to think that there actually are intelligent life forms that use an unknown process to extract high energy from sulphurous compounds? Also, you are basing yourself in terran creatures metabolism cycles. what if they have a much slower metabolism?
thing is: we don't know.. Just because we came to be with XYZ process doesn't mean that somewhere out there, there are lifeforms that base themselves on process ABC or DEF, or even ZAT or whatever concoction you can come up with. So yeah, in the end I might be imaginative, but you restrict yourself too, thinking that they work in a similar process as ours. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
873
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 02:08:00 -
[32] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:. So yeah, in the end I might be imaginative, but you restrict yourself too, thinking that they work in a similar process as ours.
And I disagree. I think that we are seeing that the building blocks of our DNA are naturally occurring in the interstellar medium of space. I think that the evidence is suggesting that life is, more or less, created uniformly throughout the universe and is then "seeded" onto planets. The planet itself does not create life it only harbors it, or it does not harbor it.
Since these elements (that make us) are naturally occurring everywhere, we can expect striking similarities between lifeforms throughout the cosmos.
These elements have certain properties, among them is the need to be dissolved in a fluid medium and they only react with each other in certain temperature zones. These normals (the same ones that we see on earth) could very well be universal normals for most all life in the universe. This assertion is based upon the newest data that we currently have available to us. Your assertion is based upon nothing but the human imagination.
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
873
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 02:14:00 -
[33] - Quote
Bane Necran wrote:You might find this interesting.
Looks like the exact blah blah I was referring to in my Op. He makes no mention of why Venus is warm, or how a exoplanet flung from a sun can sustain complex lifeforms in the pitch black absolute zero of deep space. He is not even addressing magnetic fields, sputtering of solar wind, core composition, lunar environmental controls or even how much radiation a planet would be absorbing if it was orbiting that close to those faint red dwarf stars.
A perfect example of what I was referring to in my Op. As a result any value that he claims to have come up with are just random numbers that have no real meaning.
|
Alpheias
Euphoria Released Verge of Collapse
1837
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 02:45:00 -
[34] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:The stuff that makes us seems to occur naturally in space, everywhere and no planet is needed. Why are you presuming that the source of life as we know it is not the norm for life in the universe? You are using your creativity again instead of looking at what facts we have at our disposal.
That kind of behavior I find laughable.
I don't presume. I just don't see why it should be and wouldn't it be more exciting if life on other planets wasn't, nevermind physiology of the species, wasn't water and carbon based as life on this planet is?
Another behavior of yours that is laughable is your consistent inability to take critique of any kind. In fact, you go into your tantrums every time someone disagrees with you, like you did just now. You are not exactly countering my arguments with any peer-reviewed articles that would support your theory that all life in the universe would be based on carbon and water.
Eternum Praetorian wrote:You may be the first person to suggest that when we look up to the stars and ask "is there anyone out there?" we are some how talking about monkeys. You get an A+ for creative ridiculousness and debate technique. But... no. Srsly. lol.
I asked you to define intelligent life for me. And I do wish I could say this in a nicer way, but I am not really surprised that you couldn't because it takes intelligence to define intelligence. Go back to watching the History Channel, bible studies or whatever you do when your parents tell your computer time is up. Allow me to be frank. You will not like me. You will not like me now, and you will not like men++ a good deal less as we go on. |
Bursty
Underworld Protection Agency Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 02:58:00 -
[35] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Bane Necran wrote:You might find this interesting. Looks like the exact blah blah I was referring to in my Op. He makes no mention of how Venus became so warm, or how a exoplanet flung from a sun can sustain complex lifeforms in the pitch black near-absolute zero of deep space. He is not even addressing magnetic fields, sputtering of solar wind, core composition, lunar environmental controls or even how much radiation a planet would be absorbing if it was orbiting that close to those faint red dwarf stars. It is a perfect example of what I was referring to in my Op. As a result any value that he claims to have come up with are just random numbers that have no real meaning. May I remind everyone here that we are not talking about the occurrence of "life" we are talking about the occurrence of intelligent self-aware life. There is a big difference between those two things by leaps and bounds. There may be bacteria sucking on thermal vents beneath the ice of Europa, but there are not people down there sucking on them and metabolizing sulfur.
From all that I have read from you so far you crave attention by trying to go against the grain with anything actually substantial. Have you ever heard the saying, "You mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open." The self centered thought of thinking that all life in the "KNOWN" universe is based on life as it is here on earth is pretty narrow in vision. For all we know there is life that travels faster then the speed of light, lives in multiple states of matter(as we know them to be so far). Just try not to assume so much and approach things that we know so far with an open mind, you might find there are more things in this world to expand your mind with if you merely step through the door with an open mind and not a closed one. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
873
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 03:02:00 -
[36] - Quote
These are the EVE Forums, since when are we supposed to be nice? This is a venue for cut throat debates and undermining debate tactics of every imaginable kind, except of course, when it become inconvenient for a person in question. What you call a tantrum is nothing more then me drawing a line in the sand and asserting that position without compromise, until evidence to the contrary has been presented. Do so and I will happily concede, and I will learn something in the process, which is part of the point.
Quote:I just don't see why it should be and wouldn't it be more exciting if life on other planets wasn't
Exciting really has nothing to do with it. I am basing my theories/ideas on data that has actually been collected.
Quote: You are not exactly countering my arguments with any peer-reviewed articles that would support your theory that all life in the universe would be based on carbon and water.
I invite you to apply your own reasoning, and supply peer-reviewed articles that clearly contradict my Op. As far as I know what is in my OP is fairly commonplace wiki-knowledge and can be easily be confirmed by a simple google search.
But before you try and do that, go back and read it again...
I never said all life is based upon carbon and water, I said intelligent life requires packets of high energy in the form of oxygen, and there are universal normals in terms of needing a "solvent" and "temperature ranges" for the chemicals of life to interact. That is not nearly the same thing as "all life would be based on carbon and water" and is in fact not even remotely the same thing.
|
Bursty
Underworld Protection Agency Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 03:05:00 -
[37] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:As far as I know what is in my OP is fairly commonplace wiki-knowledge and can be easily be confirmed by a simple google search.
Because everything on the internet is true... *facepalm* |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
873
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 03:05:00 -
[38] - Quote
Bursty wrote:. For all we know there is life that travels faster then the speed of light, lives in multiple states of matter(as we know them to be so far).
There is no reason to entertain such wild "star trek" ideas outside of the venue of story telling, with the knowledge that we have now. "Life that travels beyond the speed of light" is one hell of a statement to make and expect to be taken seriously. As for life living in multiple states of matter, I appear to be made out of dissolved air, liquid, electric current and solid. Does that mean I qualify?
|
Bursty
Underworld Protection Agency Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 03:11:00 -
[39] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Bursty wrote:. For all we know there is life that travels faster then the speed of light, lives in multiple states of matter(as we know them to be so far). There is no reason to entertain such wild "star trek" ideas outside of the venue of story telling, with the knowledge that we have now. "Life that travels beyond the speed of light" is one hell of a statement to make and expect to be taken seriously. As for life living in multiple states of matter, I appear to be made out of dissolved air, liquid, electric current and solid. Does that mean I qualify? Bursty wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:As far as I know what is in my OP is fairly commonplace wiki-knowledge and can be easily be confirmed by a simple google search. Because everything on the internet is true... *facepalm* Maybe you should start with more reputable interwebs like Nasa's, and read some national geographic PDF's you may have better luck.
I am not saying that i know there are things that can travel faster than the speed of light or live in multiple states of matter, but I am also not dismissing it just because it hasn't been discovered...
People used to think the world was flat and if you sailed in a direction long enough you would simply fall off... Boy were those people wrong in hind site... that is all that I am saying, don't put all of your eggs in one basket thinking that your going to get the golden egg. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
873
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 03:14:00 -
[40] - Quote
Your ideas require a great deal of creativity, as there is nothing suggesting their existence outside of your own mind.
|
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
873
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 03:17:00 -
[41] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:
I asked you to define intelligent life for me. And I do wish I could say this in a nicer way, but I am not really surprised that you couldn't because it takes intelligence to define intelligence. Go back to watching the History Channel, bible studies or whatever you do when your parents tell your computer time is up.
Eternum Praetorian wrote:May I remind everyone here that we are not talking about the occurrence of "life" we are talking about the occurrence of intelligent self-aware life. There is a big difference between those two things by leaps and bounds. There may be bacteria sucking on thermal vents beneath the ice of Europa, but there are not people down there sucking on them and metabolizing sulfur.
More then enough for the subject matter of this thread. And if not, allow me to be more clear... we are not trying to define intelligence here beyond the simple notion of extraterrestrial, civilization capable, self-aware, technology building entities. "Intelligence" is a term that is more then sufficient for the subject matter of the op. But again... nice try
|
Alpheias
Euphoria Released Verge of Collapse
1838
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 05:55:00 -
[42] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:More then enough for the subject matter of this thread. And if not, allow me to be more clear... we are not trying to define intelligence here beyond the simple notion of extraterrestrial, civilization capable, self-aware, technology building entities. "Intelligence" is a term that is more then sufficient for the subject matter of the op. But again... nice try
You seem more edgy than usual so what are you hoping for? For ******* E.T. to call the wrong number instead of phoning home?
Have you been listening to the UFO guy on the History Channel again? Allow me to be frank. You will not like me. You will not like me now, and you will not like men++ a good deal less as we go on. |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
6209
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 06:13:00 -
[43] - Quote
"Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff-á |
Karak Terrel
As Far As The eYe can see Chained Reactions
148
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 06:16:00 -
[44] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote: You Are Also Going To Need A Moon
Without a moon the earth would flip on itGÇÖs side as it spins like Mars does. There would be nothing resembling a stable climate and even the length of the days would change without our moon. There would be no hope for a civilization on a planet where the equator became the north pole and visa versa regularly. The climate shifts would be extreme and extreme heat and cold would visit every continent. This wobble would alter the flow of oceans, such as the Gulf Stream, that act as climate control conveyer belts that keep the planets climate in check.
Mars has an axial tilt of 25.19-¦. Earth has an axial tilt of 23,44-¦. They are almost the same. And why would the moon have something to do with stabilization? If anything, the moon is a disturbing factor for earth. Planets don't just flip on it's side if there is nothing around that changes the angular momentum. they are quite stable.
And the tides actually slow the rotation of the earth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gftT3wHJGtg
I see two big problems when speculating about the abundance of life or the abundance of intelligent life.
- abundance of life We don't even have the complete picture yet how self replicating molecules form. And if we don't know the process or if there are more than one possibility to actually start life we have no clue how probable or improbable it may be.
Also our knowledge about possible biochemistry is a one point statistic. We know no other form of life. That is the worst possible position if you want to speculate about abundance of life.
That's also why finding life in our solar system is so important. Maybe there is non, but if we find life and it is not related to us (no panspermia) that would increase our knowledge about biochemistry literally astronomically. And we can only look in our solar system, so it better has to be there!
- abundance of intelligence
-- Definition of Intelligence Almost same story here. We know something about evolved intelligence in animals. But we are all so closely related that it isn't that much of a difference.
My guess is that there is more to intelligence than just the known evolved intelligence we see. I say that because of what i see in projects with artificial intelligence (like IBM watson). In my opinion this experiments with artificial intelligence will give us a glimpse at what else could be possible and what the boundaries of intelligence and sentient "life" is.
- - abundance We don't fully understand what it is and we have a one point statistic that tells us that it took billions of years to get from life to sentient life. Everything you can do is take a wild guess.
tl;dr We have no frakin idea, but wo know where to look to change that. |
Harley Marsten
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 07:02:00 -
[45] - Quote
The OPs stance is no less nor no more valid than the opposing stance. Its an unknown, exactly, how common or uncommon life in the universe is, much less intelligent life. Fact is, homo sapiens are on the receiving end of an extraordinary bout of good luck. We're just the right distance from the sun, just the right sized moon, and just the right conditions to evolve a large, complex brain.
The question is, how many scenarios are there were intelligence is an evolutionary advantage?
I've always been of multiple minds about this. I want to beleive there are other intelligent life forms out there. But what are the chances of them looking in the right spot to find us, given the intelligence advantage is theirs, or we're looking in the right direction to find them? We are just now starting to refine techniques to find other planets, and even then finding something that isn't a massive, bloated gas giant is a lot more difficult.
So finding another world where intelligence makes sense to have evolved is going to be difficult at best.
On the other hand, the philisophical side of my brain wonders if intelligence is truly a benefit, or if we're intelligent for the sole purpose of wiping the world clean to start anew. But thats a debate for another day.
In summary, is it possible for there to be other intelligent civilizations? Yes. Is it possible there isn't? Yes. Both are equally valid until we get more data one way or the other. |
Graygor
1kB Realty 1kB Galactic
8374
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 07:28:00 -
[46] - Quote
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:
Thats wn.
And anyone remember when the history channel used to have... you know... content?
Edit
Harley Marsten wrote: In summary, is it possible for there to be other intelligent civilizations? Yes. Is it possible there isn't? Yes. Both are equally valid until we get more data one way or the other.
Pretty much this, this whole arguement is moot as there's no way anyone can be right as we will have to get out there and have a look. By that point we'll all be long dead anyway. Stop arguing in terms of right or wrong, thats impossible, you're debating theory not fact. Anyone who talks about extra planetary lfe in terms of fact is a damn idiot... unless they have a stargate and have been travelling the galaxy. "I think you should buy a new Mayan calendar. Mine has muscle cars on it." --áKenneth O'Hara
Post with your brainGäó |
Harley Marsten
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 07:33:00 -
[47] - Quote
Graygor wrote:Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote: Thats wn. And anyone remember when the history channel used to have... you know... content? Edit Harley Marsten wrote: In summary, is it possible for there to be other intelligent civilizations? Yes. Is it possible there isn't? Yes. Both are equally valid until we get more data one way or the other.
Pretty much this, this whole arguement is moot as there's no way anyone can be right as we will have to get out there and have a look. By that point we'll all be long dead anyway. Stop arguing in terms of right or wrong, thats impossible, you're debating theory not fact. Anyone who talks about extra planetary lfe in terms of fact is a damn idiot... unless they have a stargate and have been travelling the galaxy.
You mean when it was the World War II channel? |
Graygor
1kB Realty 1kB Galactic
8374
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 07:43:00 -
[48] - Quote
Harley Marsten wrote: You mean when it was the World War II channel?
Not sure where you live, but in the UK they used to do a lot of stuff on famous European leaders such as Wellington, Napoleon, the rise and fall of Communism, pretty much lots of stuff on the 18th - 20th centuries. And yes, LOTS of WW2 stuff as well. I used to remember seeing World War 2 in colour being advertised all the time in the late 90s.
Then they started filling it with cheap rubbish like Ancient Aliens and so on...
History channel has gone the way of Sci Fi... sorry, SyFy (shudder) with pro wrestling instead history have things like Pawn Stars which is actually interesting from the history side. They just need Rick to do the whole show and then the quality would go up. "I think you should buy a new Mayan calendar. Mine has muscle cars on it." --áKenneth O'Hara
Post with your brainGäó |
Harley Marsten
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 07:49:00 -
[49] - Quote
I'm in the US. (funny, I went to type US, typed "SS". Freudian slip?) Once in a while there was a nugget of goodness, but for the most part, 24/7 World War II. Then the nutjobs started chiming in with "Histories Mysteries" and Atlantis nonsense (funny how so many people beleive an allegory to be a real historical account...)
Now its basically nutjob conspiracy shows like Brad Meltzer's Decoded and Ancient Aliens, "reality" shows like Pawn Stars and American Pickers (which are watchable, if a bit dull at times) and up until 12/21 came and went, hours upon hours of Apocalyptic hype (Nostradamus Effect, etc) which I fully expect will resume when the next nutjob end of the world prophecy comes up.
Now that I think about what, what exactly qualifies us as intelligent? We're pretty much sheep when it comes to others trying to control us... |
Rana Ash
Gradient Electus Matari
116
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 09:31:00 -
[50] - Quote
Well it's life Jim, but not as we know it. Not as we know it Captain |
|
Thomas Gore
Black Dawn Rising
169
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 10:42:00 -
[51] - Quote
Well we know one thing for certain - the probability of intelligent life happening on a given planet is higher than zero.
That plus the fact there is a near-infinite amount of planets in the universe makes me thing that a-yep, we're not alone.
The only question: Is it possible to travel from one habitated planet to another within the lifespan of a civilization?
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
873
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 12:29:00 -
[52] - Quote
Karak Terrel wrote: Mars has an axial tilt of 25.19-¦. Earth has an axial tilt of 23,44-¦. They are almost the same. And why would the moon have something to do with stabilization? If anything, the moon is a disturbing factor for earth. Planets don't just flip on it's side if there is nothing around that changes the angular momentum. they are quite stable..
Look it up
Also I totally agree with the last couple of posters. The point of this thread is that one IS as equally possible as the other, and we cannot know. Both are equally as correct and one way of thought does not eclipse the other. Most all life could be carbon based and we could be a rarity in the cosmos. There is no reason why not.
It is less "fun" but it is very possible.
|
Karak Terrel
As Far As The eYe can see Chained Reactions
149
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 13:03:00 -
[53] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Karak Terrel wrote: Mars has an axial tilt of 25.19-¦. Earth has an axial tilt of 23,44-¦. They are almost the same. And why would the moon have something to do with stabilization? If anything, the moon is a disturbing factor for earth. Planets don't just flip on it's side if there is nothing around that changes the angular momentum. they are quite stable..
Look it up
Hmm.. You are actually right. Sorry for that. Thx for the educating me. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
873
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 13:27:00 -
[54] - Quote
Np. I am here to learn to
|
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Operations
3288
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:22:00 -
[55] - Quote
And this appeared today:
"Press Release
Release No.: 2013-01For Release: Monday, January 07, 2013 01:30:00 PM EST At Least One in Six Stars Has an Earth-sized Planet Long Beach, CA - The quest for a twin Earth is heating up. Using NASA's Kepler spacecraft, astronomers are beginning to find Earth-sized planets orbiting distant stars. A new analysis of Kepler data shows that about 17 percent of stars have an Earth-sized planet in an orbit closer than Mercury. Since the Milky Way has about 100 billion stars, there are at least 17 billion Earth-sized worlds out there.
Francois Fressin, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), presented the analysis today in a press conference at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Long Beach, Calif. A paper detailing the research has been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal.
Kepler detects planetary candidates using the transit method, watching for a planet to cross its star and create a mini-eclipse that dims the star slightly. The first 16 months of the survey identified about 2,400 candidates. Astronomers then asked, how many of those signals are real, and how many planets did Kepler miss?
By simulating the Kepler survey, Fressin and his colleagues were able to correct both the impurity and the incompleteness of this list of candidates to recover the true occurrence of planets orbiting other stars, down to the size of Earth.
"There is a list of astrophysical configurations that can mimic planet signals, but altogether, they can only account for one-tenth of the huge number of Kepler candidates. All the other signals are bona-fide planets," says Fressin.
Most sun-like stars have planets
Altogether, the researchers found that 50 percent of stars have a planet of Earth-size or larger in a close orbit. By adding larger planets, which have been detected in wider orbits up to the orbital distance of the Earth, this number reaches 70 percent. "
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013/pr201301.html GÇ£Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.GÇ¥ GÇò Oscar Wilde |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
873
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:45:00 -
[56] - Quote
Quote: A new analysis of Kepler data shows that about 17 percent of stars have an Earth-sized planet in an orbit closer than Mercury. Since the Milky Way has about 100 billion stars, there are at least 17 billion Earth-sized worlds out there.
There is allot I can comment on in this article, but first I have to ask... "Closer then Mercury?" is that meant to be a "pro-intellegent-life-is-everywhere-out-there" discovery? That jumps off of the page and says that 17% of stars have earth size planets burning up near their parent stars.
Quote:Altogether, the researchers found that 50 percent of stars have a planet of Earth-size or larger in a close orbit. By adding larger planets, which have been detected in wider orbits up to the orbital distance of the Earth, this number reaches 70 percent. "
That's even worse.
One would presume that all "metallic" stars of appropriate age would have an accretion disk that would create celestial bodies as it cooled.
|
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Operations
3288
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 21:27:00 -
[57] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
That's even worse.
Explain why this would be 'worse' ?
The Universe is what it is. It knows of no such concept.
GÇ£Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.GÇ¥ GÇò Oscar Wilde |
Ares Desideratus
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
77
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 22:41:00 -
[58] - Quote
No one knows and that is the Truth I'm an ignorant non-believer. When people see things differently, misunderstandings happen. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
873
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 23:21:00 -
[59] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:
That's even worse.
Explain why this would be 'worse' ? The Universe is what it is. It knows of no such concept.
17 Billion earth sized planets closer to their sun then Mercury (which is 400 degrees Celsius on the day side and -200 on the night side) is not a case for life on them. It claims that 50% of stars have earth sized planets around them, then goes on to say that they are in close proximity to their parent. If "close" means Mercury zone and closer that does not bode well for life on those worlds. The worlds that we would be looking at would be more in the Venus zone, but there are no numbers representing the amounts of those worlds proportional to the rest. It does however seem to be suggesting that a fair quantity of them are closer to their parent stars then mercury and are thus worlds of incredible temperature extremes.
It also states that larger planets are in "earth's zone" and farther away. But it makes no distinction between terrestrial worlds and Jovian worlds made of gas. Are larger worlds big earths or are larger worlds Jovian worlds? It is not clear. When we start to talk about Jovian worlds we are talking about gaseous planets and that is a whole different ball of wax.
Ultimately, a planet closer to the sun then Mercury is not a likely candidate for intelligent life. It is saying that they have discovered 17 billion versions of hell.
|
Noriko Satomi
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
155
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 00:01:00 -
[60] - Quote
How about something a little more, uhh, sciencey: http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.3835
Also, to contribute to the discussion, it turns out that spacetime is flat (which, for those in the know, means the universe is likely infinite). |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |