Do you believe in Aliens? (Page 3)
Here's the YouTube vid that AP was talking about.
An hour and a half. I ain't willing to subject myself to an hour and a half. Perhaps AP can provide a synopsis, or someone else with a masochistic streak can examine it and report.
"And you your self know that possibilities for organisms out there are ridiculously high."
And in the next breath, says:
"No proof yet"
You're contradicting yourself. If there's no proof, how could you know what the possibilities are?
Otherwise, a very incomprehensible post, AP
Azimuth_Predator: Oh damn i just saw this lol
You're contradicting yourself. If there's no proof, how could you know what the possibilities are?
Because the cosmos is F......g endless?? lol
Possibility is the condition or fact of being possible.
So we are gathering more facts as we search. And how many regions do we know but have not been searched? Yes sits a lot! lol
So many that we cant keep up with them. So there are the possibilities you are looking for. lol
I know why you are in a hurry SITS. You are to old and you want answers asap but you might be dead by the time we find something. I might be dead by the time we find something.
But i am optimistic that we will due to the size of the unknown vast space.
You just don't like being proved wrong old man.
Well in this case you are.
You just got schooled from a younger due how do you feel? hehehe
I am 1000000% sure he will.
He will copy paste and mention wiki for sure lol
But he wont change my mind on this one cause of the no proof.
SITS has knowledge on the subject but he is a pessimist. He wont agree with that though and he will say he is a realist cause of the fact issue.
My point is
If you tell me to search for nail in a hay stack
i will search all the Hay till i find it. It will be a hard task but i shall try and hope i find it.
SITS will stop searching it and he will say there is no nail.
So i can prove him wrong and say "SITS you did not search all the Hay stack".
Side note : the nail does not have to be an intelligent life form lol
Azimuth_Predator: What impressed me from the documentary was not the fictional characters. But the probes which are technically possible cause we have them already.
And they are advancing rapidly systematically and technologically.
And yes the rocket will travel at 20% light speed.
The main challenge facing interstellar travel is the vast distances that have to be covered. This means that a very great speed and/or a very long travel time is needed. The time it takes with most realistic propulsion methods would be from decades to millennia. Hence an interstellar ship would be much more severely exposed to the hazards found in interplanetary travel, including hard vacuum, radiation, weightlessness, and micrometeoroids.
A significant factor contributing to the difficulty is the energy which must be supplied to obtain a reasonable travel time. A lower bound for the required energy is the kinetic energy K = ½ mv2 where m is the final mass.
So i think 20% of it is more approachable. And the Pegasus region stars are closer.
So why not try?
(Edited by Azimuth_Predator)
hellbhoy: I want to throw a spanner in there and mention NASA found a rock on MARS which under a microscope appeared to have contained what appeared to be microscopic microbes !.
LiptonCambell: Lol Azimuth
You know we know nothing about the origin of life, right?
What you're suggesting, the universe is big and full of planets only proves that the universe is big and full of planets- but can those planets sustain life? Sadly, the only kind of proof you can present is of the made-up variety.
Because we know nothing of the origin of life! In your desperation to "be right", you forgot that the answer to this quandary REQUIRES understanding one of the most significant questions to have plagued mankind- why did animate matter suddenly spring forth into life.
The "universe is huge" crowd can prove only two things- The universe is riddled with planets(the condition of these planets are politely whitewashed, since actual knowledge is unnecessary here, apparently), and they have a religious-like zeal that they are right, and everything we have observed about the universe is wrong- because they FEEL that the observations are wrong, and the scientists haven't looked hard enough.
There's a name for people who reject known facts in place of ones they per-determined and created a belief system around- zealots
There is nothing scientific about what you claim. Its a method of making up numbers to cover up the fact that you don't know, and don't wish or care to understand.
(Edited by LiptonCambell)
"I want to throw a spanner in there and mention NASA found a rock on MARS which under a microscope appeared to have contained what appeared to be microscopic microbes !."
No, they didn't.
LiptonCambell: Didn't they found a rock in the 80's in the antarctic believed to be from mars, that has some microbes on it?
A little common sense, here! Please!
If "Martian microbes" had actually been found, it would be one of the biggest news stories of all time.
hellbhoy: I stand corrected on the NASA bit then and the spanner was thrown back OUCH ha ha.
SITS it was big news for a while all over the news media globally.
Here's a link about the Martian rock that sits !!! "SITS ha ha" on the fence about it.
I read it and the general outcome is they can't rule out or say it actually is life from MARS.
If I remember correctly as well from the time there was some MAD hypothesis that life could have came from Mars to Earth traveling through space in some kind of frozen hibernation and being so light floated down to Earth without the atmospheric burnout larger items suffer from entry.Thought I'd throw the spanner back in he he.
Aura_: Wait a minute, wait a minute. How is theory of possible life not based in science?
You need a second or third generation sun, so heavier elements have been produced. We've already proven mathematically that heavier elements can be produced in suns.
A 'Goldilocks zone': the orbit where the temperature of a planet is such that it can have water in liquid form, is there around every star and you could, if you wanted, calculate exactly where that orbit should be, based on energy output of the star. This is not speculation, it's there.
Next, you will need a planet in said orbit with a magnetic field. As far as I know, that means a planet with a spinning liquid iron core. There might be more to it than that, I don't feel like wikiing for it right this second. So that would be a rather young planet (by the way, we know this because our magnetic field is weakening. Not speculation, just observation) and from what we have seen, iron cores are not that rare.
So that's 3 thing you will need, that we know are around, heavier elements, the right temperature and a magnetic field. Once you combine those, Why would there NOT be a chance of life?
Sure you need other things as well, like maybe lightning, volcanic activity, a weather system, but even on dead planets we already discovered those things. That seem to be the most common things of all.
But to say that there is absolutely no chance of life on any other planet but earth seems to me just as big a leap of faith as saying there is.
Really, Dude. You need to actually READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE before you provide it, not just the headline.
hellbhoy: Why are we basing lifeforms on what constitutes life on Earth ?.
SITS I did read it all,quote
"Does all life have to be based on molecules as large and complex as DNA? Some scientists have reported finding so-called “nanobacteria” in a wide range of environments.These mysterious objects are as small as the alleged Martian microbes, and are conceivably living organisms".
Too eager to throw that spanner back were we ?.
Azimuth_Predator: Thank you very much Zen!
I thought it would not be necessary to explain all that. But i was wrong cause some people don't understand.
*coughs and points at Litpon Cambell and One bar.*
Lipton Cambell: you can suck on my big fat hairy cojones. Muahahahaha
One bar:You never state an opinion you always agree or disagree and you never explain why. And when you try the ironic role its a total backfire. Muahahaha....again.
Sorry about that but i just had to do it lol
Azimuth_Predator: Obvious in your point of view maybe. You never make any sense and people like you are always proved wrong.
For example : if we go back in time people like you would laugh at the theories of black holes, pulsars, Oval orbits, alcohol clouds and Planemos.
You are the guy that just sits around in the corner hoping for someone to fail a mission so you can laugh while you sit in the corner doing nothing about it and nothing to understand it.
So your obvious is surely not progressive and not up to date.
But i do thank you for saying my name is cool. It does kick ass huh?
LiptonCambell: >>>Why would there NOT be a chance of life?
We don't know. The issue of WHAT spawns life from non-life still exists. All you've done is present planet's that could have a greater potential than the greater whole.
>>>But to say that there is absolutely no chance of life on any other planet but earth seems to me just as big a leap of faith as saying there is.
And yet, all the facts support it. The only support the "life on any other planet" camp has is conjecture.
>>>Why are we basing lifeforms on what constitutes life on Earth ?
I agree completely.
>>>Obvious in your point of view maybe. You never make any sense and people like you are always proved wrong. For example : if we go back in time people like you would laugh at the theories of black holes, pulsars, Oval orbits, alcohol clouds and Planemos.
There you go again- you seem terrified of what future generations will think of you.
I am content that I am using what we know correctly- I am basing my opinion on facts, not conjecture- to do otherwise is acting in blind faith.
"NASA found a rock on MARS which under a microscope appeared to have contained what appeared to be microscopic microbes !."
Then hellbhoy quotes from his referenced article to corroborate that statement:
"Does all life have to be based on molecules as large and complex as DNA? Some scientists have reported finding so-called “nanobacteria” in a wide range of environments.These mysterious objects are as small as the alleged Martian microbes, and are conceivably living organisms."
Those statements say two different things. Apples and oranges.