If we're not alone in the universe, then where is everybody else?
August 27th, 2011 at 12:50:14 AM
permalink
Wizard, I still think all societies would have to overcome the obstacles that we've thought about overcoming. Colonizing other planets around other stars would be extremely costly and risky ventures. I don't believe in warp drive and I think other societies are limited to radio communications at the speed of light as well as the limits of relativity.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
August 27th, 2011 at 3:25:36 AM
permalink
Apparently Carl Sagan made a case for colonizing Mars, that we should be at least a 2 planet civilization, to reduce the risk of getting wiped out. Doing that will really task our abilities; currently, our will to explore space at all is being tasked [although the Chinese perhaps have picked up where the rest of us left off].
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 27th, 2011 at 4:01:27 AM
permalink
I think the absence of evidence, unfortunately doesn't leave us any better off than belief in a god.
I'd like to say otherwise, but I think that's about where we are as far coming up with something substantial to support some belief in someone else being out there.
While I do think, at least, it's likely there is life of some sort elsewhere, as the probabilities of microbes existing is better than more complex development.
I'd like to say otherwise, but I think that's about where we are as far coming up with something substantial to support some belief in someone else being out there.
While I do think, at least, it's likely there is life of some sort elsewhere, as the probabilities of microbes existing is better than more complex development.
Sanitized for Your Protection
August 27th, 2011 at 7:09:52 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboWizard, I still think all societies would have to overcome the obstacles that we've thought about overcoming. Colonizing other planets around other stars would be extremely costly and risky ventures. I don't believe in warp drive and I think other societies are limited to radio communications at the speed of light as well as the limits of relativity.
While any ET society would have the same scientific hurdles to overcome, I think it's risky to assume that it would have the same socio-political and psyche- (for lack of a better term) problems that we have. What we know to be the "human condition" simply would not be the same/similar as the "ET condition" is in those societies (outside of coincidence). If it were the same/similar (not counting coincidence), the orthodoxy-shattering ramification would be that all theories on the randomness of how life formed and evolution are wrong. You just can't write off that kind of similarity to random mutations.
(Taking it a step further, one of the fundamental assumptions of science is that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe for all time. If an ET society has different laws of physics ... 1) we have to shit-can all of our theory of origins, and 2) it would be damn near impossible to detect them or communicate with them.)
I thought that the TV show Star Trek presented an object that would make economies as we know them obsolete: the replicator. If we had replicators, then there would be no shortages and no need to allocate resources, as they're no longer scarce. If anything like a replicator is invented, the costs you mention would go away. It would be free.
Quote: rxwineI think the absence of evidence, unfortunately doesn't leave us any better off than belief in a god.
I'd like to say otherwise, but I think that's about where we are as far coming up with something substantial to support some belief in someone else being out there.
While I do think, at least, it's likely there is life of some sort elsewhere, as the probabilities of microbes existing is better than more complex development.
I agree that the absence of evidence does not = proof. But I don't agree that that is the same thing as "proof" that there's no god. The major flaw in that analogy is that people see the universe, and (to catch a phrase from this discussion) those who truly SEE with an open mind see that as proof of god. (I don't hold that view but I don't think it's insane, either.) On the contrary, nobody has ever seen an ET.
I think when someone says they "believe" in ETs, they're really saying they "hope" or that they "believe in the statistics." While the "hope" thing also applies to god, at least the universe is seen, as opposed to an ET. So, I don't think your analogy demonstrates your point. Maybe there's a better one ... ?
August 27th, 2011 at 7:29:04 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboIf a giant asteroid hit the earth there's a very good chance that we would all die.
I'd say a slightly worse chance than a snowball's chances in hell, outside the last circle.
The infamous asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, or most of them, didn't do so all at once or in a few days. it took years for all the giant reptiles (don't quibble) to die off. Those were wild animals with no brains to speak of, little capability to adapt and no capacity at all to change their surroundings.
If we can't do better than that, and in a few years, never mind decades, we can secure any number of means for survival.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 27th, 2011 at 7:45:45 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedThe infamous asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, or most of them....
I agree, that field, as opposed to the public generally, views birds as direct descendants now. They refer to the ones that got killed off as "non-avian dinosaurs" [modern birds have further evolved of course.]
PS: not to say that if an impact event similar to that one happened again, that for the most part the lucky ones might not be the ones killed by the impact.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 27th, 2011 at 7:49:26 AM
permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerThe major flaw in that analogy is that people see the universe, and (to catch a phrase from this discussion) those who truly SEE with an open mind see that as proof of god. (I don't hold that view but I don't think it's insane, either.) On the contrary, nobody has ever seen an ET.
I was introduced to the concept of god by my parents and the church not by the Universe. Anyway, why stop with the Prime Mover? (who moved the Prime Mover?) The explanation that something unknowable created something knowable doesn't explain the unknowable thing's existence.
Might as well go with Hawkings:
Quote:In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”
He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.
Sanitized for Your Protection
August 27th, 2011 at 8:05:17 AM
permalink
Quote: rxwineI think the absence of evidence, unfortunately doesn't leave us any better off than belief in a god.
Let's review the evidence and assumptions.
1) We know there is an intelligent, technologically advanced species living in a planet of certain characteristics around a yellow sun.
2) We know stars are objects like our sun, which makes the Sun a star.
3) We assume other stars have planets around them. This assumption as been proven, with planets being detected with amazing frequency now.
4) We know life evolved on Earth, even if not quite how.
5) we assume life may evolve in other planets, eventually reaching sentience and technological levels similar or superior to our own.
Ok, the last assumption is unproven. It doesn't look particularly good, either, considering we have found no other life, so far, anywhere but on Earth. Worse still, we haven't found any intelligent species even close to our level anywhere on Earth, either.
As to the last, we know some of our ancestors were close to our level of intelligence, but they evolved into us. At one point two varieties of humanity existed, the Cro-magnon and the Neanderthals. The former were the early version of modern humans, the latter are extinct. Now, the Neanderthals achieved a technological level close to the Cro-magnons, but they either died out or merged (no one is sure) with their other human cousins.
So based on what we know, we can say intelligence coupled with the ability to make tools is extremely rare and requires a long time. Our planet has existed for billions of years, life for nearly as long. It took a lot of time to get from bugs to humans.
Does it take that long everywhere? We don't know.
Is it reasonable to suppose life and intelligence will evolve elsewhere? I think so in the case of life. I'm less certain regarding intelligence.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 27th, 2011 at 9:20:49 AM
permalink
Quote: rxwineI was introduced to the concept of god by my parents and the church not by the Universe. Anyway, why stop with the Prime Mover? (who moved the Prime Mover?) The explanation that something unknowable created something knowable doesn't explain the unknowable thing's existence.
Might as well go with Hawkings:
Golly, didn't know we were talking about your personal experience. I was saying that some people SEE with an open mind the universe and discern a god. Given the evidence in front of their face, it's equally as reasonable a conclusion as any that doesn't involve god.
I'm not as smart as Hawking, but if the laws of physics were "written" upon the occurrence of the Big Bang, then there's no way gravity could have pre-existed and been a "because." If the laws of physics were "written" before the Big Bang, and then that particular law called Gravity then caused the universe to create itself ... well, how were those laws "written" beforehand? Sagan would urge you and Hawking to "skip a step," as he famously said in his TV show.
Hawking's statement doesn't answer your question. Following your thinking, my next question would be, who moved (i.e., what caused) that particular Prime Mover (i.e., the Spontaneous Creation)?
The question never goes away. You have to look somewhere else for the answer.
Spontaneous Creation is Hawking's "universal constant," his way of dealing with a question he can't answer. Science doesn't know who prime-moved (i.e., what caused) that particular Prime Mover (i.e., the Big Bang). Hawking stuffs it into a black box called Spontaneous Creation and says that answers the "why" question.
OK, so it's his way of dealing with what he can't/doesn't know/understand. He's entitled to it. Others put their faith in things besides the Spontaneous Creation black box that Hawking places his faith in. And since it can't be known, brain-intelligence superiority is useless. You have to look somewhere else for the answer.
August 27th, 2011 at 5:07:20 PM
permalink
I think was wrong actually.
The probability of a god may be even less than the existence of an intelligent alien life form.
There's proof of one intelligent life form in the Universe. (all jokes aside on the stupidity of mankind)
And while there's proof of the Universe, as there is not one proof of a god creating the Universe we have zero examples which is less than one. If however, you have a closed mind then god is the only reasonable source for the Universe, but an open mind has more than one.
Thus the existence of god may be a weaker argument than the existence of alien intelligent life forms.
The probability of a god may be even less than the existence of an intelligent alien life form.
There's proof of one intelligent life form in the Universe. (all jokes aside on the stupidity of mankind)
And while there's proof of the Universe, as there is not one proof of a god creating the Universe we have zero examples which is less than one. If however, you have a closed mind then god is the only reasonable source for the Universe, but an open mind has more than one.
Thus the existence of god may be a weaker argument than the existence of alien intelligent life forms.
Sanitized for Your Protection
August 27th, 2011 at 5:30:28 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineThus the existence of god may be a weaker argument than the existence of alien intelligent life forms.
Objectively there's no "may" about it.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 27th, 2011 at 5:37:56 PM
permalink
It was my minor attempt at a diplomatic statement. But then I threw back the "open mind" comment, so I probably neutered it. : )
Sanitized for Your Protection
August 27th, 2011 at 6:19:15 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineI think was wrong actually.
The probability of a god may be even less than the existence of an intelligent alien life form.
There's proof of one intelligent life form in the Universe. (all jokes aside on the stupidity of mankind)
And while there's proof of the Universe, as there is not one proof of a god creating the Universe we have zero examples which is less than one. If however, you have a closed mind then god is the only reasonable source for the Universe, but an open mind has more than one.
Thus the existence of god may be a weaker argument than the existence of alien intelligent life forms.
This was kind of hard to make sense of, but as best I understand it ...
In the same way that our existence is proof of at least one intelligent life form, some people think that the universe's existence is proof that it was created (whatever form that takes). My point is, given the evidence in front of their face, their conclusion makes as much sense as one that doesn't include god. If your point is that the universe is uncreated, it may surprise you to know that Christianity (as best I understand it) thinks its god is uncreated, too. So ... why not skip the step, as Sagan says?
You really didn't address the question of what moved the Prime Mover (whatever that is). The reason why you didn't is because you can't. The question doesn't go away. The fact that you're completely closed to a god makes you as closed-minded as someone who isn't open to there not being one. It's perfectly fine to not believe in a god. But it's dishonest to call yourself open-minded.
It's also dishonest to say, "belief in a god" = "closed-minded." A believer following your logic is forced to come to the solution, "not belief in god" = "closed-minded." The thinking works both ways; you don't get to occupy the high ground because of your conclusion.
And, something besides "the universe clearly exists and science has taken its best guess as to how that came about, therefore, there's no god" would be helpful. The two pieces of the statement really have nothing to do with each other.
This comment is a little more aggressive than I'm comfortable making, but your answer comes across as somewhat desperate, like a child who just got told there's no Santa Claus, cries, crosses his arms, pouts, and screams, "YES THERE IS!!!!" Personally, I don't know the answer to the question of god, but I do know that believers' conclusions aren't insane or closed-minded. Your response, OTOH, is very closed-minded.
It's okay to be closed-minded. Just don't try to tell us you're not.
August 27th, 2011 at 6:55:46 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistIf Judeo-Christianity espouses the lonely Earth concept, I don't think it does so intentionally. And if you buy into the creation story, "at creation" wasn't that long ago, certainly not long enough for us to change, evolve, or adapt in any meaningful way. Therefore, we're just as good as (but no better than) early man.
If you review the biblical account of creation, and the entry of "Sin" into mankind, then we are very different today than at creation. The earth is also a very different place today, than as described in the Genesis account. The discussion has remained silent on the eternal portion of each human that exists beyond the demise of the physical body described in the Christian bible. According to the bible, the redemption of the eternal portion of each of us by the grace of the, "I Am", restores us to the pre-sin spiritual condition, back to being, "as good as it gets".
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
August 27th, 2011 at 7:12:03 PM
permalink
Quoting myself.
"but an open mind has more than one. "
Where did you get the idea a god wasn't a possibility? Not from me. I'm just saying the fact that we have one intelligent life form trumps god and other possibilities for existence of the Universe, that is, if we're comparing the possibility for intelligent life forms in the Universe to probability that a god created the Universe.
Hell, if I know if the Universe is a perpetual event recurring and dying out. Maybe that sounds supernatural, but please tell me why any god process should be any more believable?
"but an open mind has more than one. "
Where did you get the idea a god wasn't a possibility? Not from me. I'm just saying the fact that we have one intelligent life form trumps god and other possibilities for existence of the Universe, that is, if we're comparing the possibility for intelligent life forms in the Universe to probability that a god created the Universe.
Hell, if I know if the Universe is a perpetual event recurring and dying out. Maybe that sounds supernatural, but please tell me why any god process should be any more believable?
Sanitized for Your Protection
August 27th, 2011 at 7:19:31 PM
permalink
I'm so thrilled that all you guys posting in this thread aren't capitalizing "god". Thank you for that. I'm obviously in the right website with like-minded individuals.
To add a bit of levity, I used to know a guy I worked with, who, anytime I swore or said something remotely dishonest or negative, he'd say "Go ahead and say that again. God's VCR is on 'record'." As if I should be shakin' in my shoes.
To add a bit of levity, I used to know a guy I worked with, who, anytime I swore or said something remotely dishonest or negative, he'd say "Go ahead and say that again. God's VCR is on 'record'." As if I should be shakin' in my shoes.
"Poker sure is an easy game to beat if you have the roll to keep rebuying."
August 27th, 2011 at 7:20:25 PM
permalink
...Btw, I thought your earlier comment was directed at the fact that since the Universe existed it made a stronger case for a god since we have as yet discovered no alien intelligent life. I was pointing out although we do have a Universe, we have not evidence of the god process, but we do have evidence of one intelligent life form. That makes it a stronger case in my book. What's hard to understand about that?
Sanitized for Your Protection
August 28th, 2011 at 7:23:08 AM
permalink
Quote: rxwine...Btw, I thought your earlier comment was directed at the fact that since the Universe existed it made a stronger case for a god since we have as yet discovered no alien intelligent life. I was pointing out although we do have a Universe, we have not evidence of the god process, but we do have evidence of one intelligent life form. That makes it a stronger case in my book. What's hard to understand about that?
Assuming the natural processes have been going on for billions of years, with life on earth evolving into more complex forms ever since the crust cooled, where are the other intelligent species on our own planet? In a general sense we all arose from the same conditions, each species responding to the same environmental stresses, how is it that there aren't many intermediate forms hanging from the trees all over the place? I think this is evidence that humans are "special", and that the case for the "god process" should not be dismissed quickly.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
August 28th, 2011 at 7:35:44 AM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaAssuming the natural processes have been going on for billions of years, with life on earth evolving into more complex forms ever since the crust cooled, where are the other intelligent species on our own planet?
Some evolved into us, one other is extinct.
Quote:In a general sense we all arose from the same conditions, each species responding to the same environmental stresses,
No. The environment in the African savanna is a bit different than thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean.
Quote:how is it that there aren't many intermediate forms hanging from the trees all over the place?
Chimpanzees, gorillas and other great apes are tool users, though not makers, and have a limited capacity for language.
Quote:I think this is evidence that humans are "special", and that the case for the "god process" should not be dismissed quickly.
So you agree, then, the Lords of Xybalba fashioned humans out of corn meal, as described in the Popol Vuh? There's as much evidence for that as for the Biblical version.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 28th, 2011 at 7:59:32 AM
permalink
Quote: rxwineThus the existence of god may be a weaker argument than the existence of alien intelligent life forms.
It depends on how you want to define "existence of God" though, how anthropomorphic you need to be. I think it is reasonable to reply to Hawkings that he is postulating the existence of God by saying the laws of gravity persist throughout the Universe, amongst other laws. There has to be some reason that is so, but it is not necessary to conjure up a manlike creature to say there is a God.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 28th, 2011 at 8:40:20 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedSome evolved into us, one other is extinct.
Just as an aside, the thinking now seems to be that only recently has it been true that homo sapiens did not share the planet with quite a few other hominids. Homo erectus is now believed to have even been around till 12,000 yrs or so ago, and it is now thought that Russia had a recent different Man cohabiting with us, the Denisovans [possibly a version of Neanderthal].
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 28th, 2011 at 10:28:54 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitIt depends on how you want to define "existence of God" though, how anthropomorphic you need to be. I think it is reasonable to reply to Hawkings that he is postulating the existence of God by saying the laws of gravity persist throughout the Universe, amongst other laws. There has to be some reason that is so, but it is not necessary to conjure up a manlike creature to say there is a God.
Actually, it is necessary in many religions. The faiths who say "we're created in His image", can't escape the corollary that He looks like us. Once, or if, you move past that, then the concept of a higher being starts to lose identifiability. What if the creator looks like a giant clump of spaghetti and meatballs?
The distinction I think many cosmologists would make is one of intent. You can equate "the existence of universal physical laws" with a deity if you wish, but it's not clear that gravity intended to exist, or that anyone/anything intended to create a universal gravitational force. If the universe happened randomly, it's hard to also say that the universe was intentionally created -- unless you ascribe to the notion that somewhere there's a god in his particle physics lab randomly colliding universe-making particles and seeing which ones survive the initial explosion. But if our universe is just one of an infinite number of random experiments, does it matter whether those experiments were set in motion intentionally?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
August 28th, 2011 at 5:48:11 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistActually, it is necessary in many religions. The faiths who say "we're created in His image", can't escape the corollary that He looks like us. Once, or if, you move past that, then the concept of a higher being starts to lose identifiability. What if the creator looks like a giant clump of spaghetti and meatballs?
This seems a little limiting to me, especially when it comes to dealing with a question like, is there a god? Really? Limiting the meaning of "image" to looks?
Some would say Plato is the image of Socrates, although (probably) they looked nothing alike.
I don't know the bible all that well, but I do know that it uses metaphors a lot when it talks about what god or other things are "like." In Exodus, god appears as a burning bush. Burning bushes look nothing like men, but the bible says that men are made in the image of god. Does that mean, because god appeared as a burning bush, that men should look like burning bushes?
The bible might say, "and the sea rose up and swallowed the land and all who inhabited it." We might say, "a tsunami wiped out a big part of northern Japan, killing thousands of people in its path." Is "wiped out" any more literal than "the sea rose up"?
There are more schools of thought about how to interpret the bible than I can count, but the one that makes the most sense to me is the one that says to read it like a newspaper article: take it literally when it's literal, and take it poetically when it's poetic.
If I read an article about the Japan tsunami that says, "it wiped out part of Japan," I don't literally think a wave WIPED OUT part of Japan, and I don't think the article is lying to me. I take it metaphorically: that the wave was extremely destructive, and the phrase "wiped out" is meant to communicate that. But the fact that northern Japan wasn't literally removed from the map doesn't make the article wrong. In fact, the term "wiped out" has no meaning UNLESS it's a metaphor.
I think a similar way of thinking should be applied to "in his image" and other obviously poetic descriptions in the bible. "Image" doesn't necessarily mean "two eyes, two arms, hands, feet, etc." It means, as best I understand it, that the bible's god has a mind, is personal, has intelligence, has will, etc., etc., etc.
If you/whoever doesn't believe that, that's fine. I'm not sure what to believe myself. But saying it's a crock because the corollary "he looks like us" MUST be axiomatic seems short-sighted in the extreme.
August 28th, 2011 at 6:15:09 PM
permalink
The below statement, true or not. I leave it for individual judgment
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran3.htm
Quote:Many of the approximately 1,500 Christian sects and denominations in North America came into being as a result of a dispute over interpretation of verses in the Bible by sincere, knowlegable, thoughtful, intelligent, devout Christians. Many of them came to radically different interpretations of the Bible.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran3.htm
Sanitized for Your Protection
August 28th, 2011 at 6:22:23 PM
permalink
Also for individual judgment, the self-reported credentials of the main writer and the point of view the site starts with.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/credentials.htm
Not to steer anyone's opinion, but wouldn't an unbiased site include all opinions? This site isn't a reporting site, it's an opinion site. That is perfectly fine, but it shouldn't call itself a reporting site.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/credentials.htm
Quote: ReligousToleranceCredentialPageMany visitors to our web site question our authors' theological credentials. We explain that none of our staff have theological degrees. We feel that a formal theological degree would be counter-productive in our work. It would probably tend to bias our authors' understanding of religious matters in a liberal direction. A Bible school diploma would also be counter-productive as it would bias us in a conservative direction. Either would probably bias our authors in favor of Christianity and against other faith groups.
Not to steer anyone's opinion, but wouldn't an unbiased site include all opinions? This site isn't a reporting site, it's an opinion site. That is perfectly fine, but it shouldn't call itself a reporting site.
August 28th, 2011 at 6:49:59 PM
permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerIf you/whoever doesn't believe that, that's fine. I'm not sure what to believe myself. But saying it's a crock because the corollary "he looks like us" MUST be axiomatic seems short-sighted in the extreme.
Regardless of how you interpret the bible, you can't plausibly extend analogy from "created in His image" to "humanity is a manifestation of cosmological constants" -- again, with the caveat that I set forth above. Moreover, anthropomorphism is at the heart of major religion, and the history of religion and especially religious art bears this out.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
August 28th, 2011 at 7:12:17 PM
permalink
My understanding of Hawkings current belief is that the laws of physics don't allow for a god. The 'big bang' was the beginning of everything including time. Since time did not exist before the 'big bang' it is impossible for anything or anyone to have existed before it to start it and the 'big bang' must have started spontaneously.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:03:13 PM
permalink
If life exists out there in human form, the reality is it is light years away. And to get a better grasp at how far a light year is we're talking about....millions of miles? And since currently based on everything that we have, it's impossible at our present state of technology to travel in terms of light years. So ie, we're scewed!!!
Unless some physicist figures out how to move people safely from Point A to Point B at the speed of light just like teleportation, we can't possibly reach a planet of inhabitance light years away. So copy our galaxy and replicate it a gazillion times and spread it out really far across the universe and time, and you realize that even deep out there, they face the exact same problem we do. How do we get there and come back quickly and safely. Just not possible.........
Unless someone actually figures out warp travel. And even with warp, you have to be able to survive deep space. Radiation and flying into bits of asteroids and debris. The greatest threat to satellites and the ISS is essentially debris. Imagine traveling at the speed of light and hitting a pebble that cause a rupture in your outer hull and then you explode. Whoopie!!!!!!!
Lots of challenges with Speed and Safety being tantamount.
Closest working theory we got on space travel is an ion-thruster. Good concept. StarTrek based for sure. Slashes our time reasonably to Mars. But still only a working theory. Oh btw, did I mention it's almost an inverse expoential function to get resources up to space from Earth. That's a huge challenge to building anything in space.
Unless some physicist figures out how to move people safely from Point A to Point B at the speed of light just like teleportation, we can't possibly reach a planet of inhabitance light years away. So copy our galaxy and replicate it a gazillion times and spread it out really far across the universe and time, and you realize that even deep out there, they face the exact same problem we do. How do we get there and come back quickly and safely. Just not possible.........
Unless someone actually figures out warp travel. And even with warp, you have to be able to survive deep space. Radiation and flying into bits of asteroids and debris. The greatest threat to satellites and the ISS is essentially debris. Imagine traveling at the speed of light and hitting a pebble that cause a rupture in your outer hull and then you explode. Whoopie!!!!!!!
Lots of challenges with Speed and Safety being tantamount.
Closest working theory we got on space travel is an ion-thruster. Good concept. StarTrek based for sure. Slashes our time reasonably to Mars. But still only a working theory. Oh btw, did I mention it's almost an inverse expoential function to get resources up to space from Earth. That's a huge challenge to building anything in space.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:42:28 PM
permalink
Quote: AsswhoopermcdaddyIf life exists out there in human form, the reality is it is light years away. And to get a better grasp at how far a light year is we're talking about....millions of miles?
Approximately 186,000*60*60*24*365 miles
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 29th, 2011 at 3:30:39 AM
permalink
Quote: AsswhoopermcdaddyJust not possible.........Unless someone actually figures out warp travel.
If we would ever attempt to travel to "nearby" Alpha Centauri conventionally, 4.2 light-years away, supposedly a certain scenario can be concocted but they don't really know if the astronauts could take it. To endure multiple G's to get to Earth orbit velocity is one thing, but to endure if for years and years as would be necessary in this scenario just seems to be only theoretically possible. It would be an awful thing to inflict on someone, even if it didnt kill them. [edits]
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 29th, 2011 at 7:14:41 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitTo endure multiple G's to get to Earth orbit velocity is one thing, but to endure if for years and years as would be necessary in this scenario just seems to be only theoretically possible. It would be an awful thing to inflict on someone, even if it didnt kill them. [edits]
You woulnd't want to accelerate that fast anyway, it's not fuel efficient.
A rocket lifting off Earth ahs to accelerate quickly, menaing with several times the gee force, because it's facing both air resistance and a strong gravitational field. It gets to orbit by 1) leaving the atmosphere behind and 2) reaching an orbital speed of about 11 kilometers per second. So the faster you accelerate, the sooner you get there.
But once in orbit you have a lot of space, all of it mostly empty, and a lot of time. So why rush?
Ideally you'd accelerate at precisely one gee, giving the spacecraft normal Earth gravity throughout the voyage. At midpoint you'd turn around and decelarate also at one gee. But to do so you'd need a LOT of fuel. So absent a working hydrogen ramscoop, that wouldn't be practical. But still, you have lots of room and time. your best bet would be an ion engine pushing at a fraction of one gee for years, or a nuclear engine, likely fission, doing the same thing.
I don't know how long would it take to reach a respectable fraction of c (light speed) at one gee thrust, though.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 29th, 2011 at 7:15:38 AM
permalink
Oh, BTW, look up Von Neuman machines while you ponder means of interstellar travel. Then ask why we haven't found any.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 29th, 2011 at 8:22:28 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedI don't know how long would it take to reach a respectable fraction of c (light speed) at one gee thrust, though.
Interestingly, it takes about a year to get to the speed of light.
c = 299,792,458 m/s
g = 9.81 m/s^2
So, it would take 30,559,883.59 seconds at constant g acceleration to reach c. Which is 353.7 days.
In that time, you would travel... 4,580,811,308,546,470 metres. Which is about 0.484 light years.
To summarize, ignoring relativity, it would take a year to accelerate at a comfortable speed to the speed of light, and you would cover 1/2 a light year in distance. The distance covered makes sense.
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
August 29th, 2011 at 8:58:33 AM
permalink
Quote: dwheatleyInterestingly, it takes about a year to get to the speed of light.
Actually it would take an eternity to get to 99.9999999999..999% of c :)
Seriously, no object containing mass can reach lightspeed. It's a relativity thing.
Quote:So, it would take 30,559,883.59 seconds at constant g acceleration to reach c. Which is 353.7 days.
Let's call that 99.99% of lightspeed, or 0.9999 c. If you stopped accelerating you'd slow down a bit due to friction with the intertellar medium, mostly scattered hydrogen atoms. And you'd lose the feel of gravity, too.
Anyway, there's no need to accelerate rapidly at all. If fuel is an issue, and it will likely be, you'd perforce accelerate slowly and make use of various planets to pick up speed in slingshot maneuvers. So assuming you can reach 0.9999 c, you'd take a year or so to get up to speed. Then you need to decelerate around your target. You can do this in various ways, including a reverse slingshot maneuver using the three Centauri stars. But you'd still need a lot of fuel to slow down.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 29th, 2011 at 10:15:19 AM
permalink
Quote: Nareed
But once in orbit you have a lot of space, all of it mostly empty, and a lot of time. So why rush?
Good question. I watched a program that claimed the G's needed would cause this problem. Looks like I should have listened better as to why they thought so.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 29th, 2011 at 10:28:21 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitGood question. I watched a program that claimed the G's needed would cause this problem. Looks like I should have listened better as to why they thought so.
Look at it this way:
Getting to orbit is like driving up a steep, muddy road with your car. If you floor the gas pedal you'll use up a lot of fuel, but will get there faster and won't risk backsliding or getting stuck.
Now suppose once you climbed to the top there's a clean, gently sloping road that eventually becomes flat and it goes on for hundreds of miles. You want to reach your car's max speed. You don't have to accelerate fast at all. Just gently press on the gas pedal and you'll eventually reach 160 mph or so, but will do so at a lower cost in fuel.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 29th, 2011 at 10:30:17 AM
permalink
Quote: the linkIf interstellar travel requires traveling at light speed, the situation is not promising. The biggest hurdles against such travel are g-forces and time. G-forces are the force exerted on your body when undergoing high accelerations. Accelerating to the speed of light would have to be done gradually or the body would be torn apart. It would take about 2 ½ months to get to just half the speed of light! This explains the need for inertial dampers-the cosmic shock absorbers created by the writers of Star Trek. Inertial dampers somehow cancel out the force responding to the accelerating force. While this solves the problem for script writers, there is no such tool in the real world of physics.
Naturally I was wondering where this came from, and found this. Better articles are probably out there. Something wrong with our numbers?
PS, now wondering what the problem is with taking 2-3 months. This subject is out there though.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 29th, 2011 at 10:32:24 AM
permalink
Doing some quick calculations, the amount of energy needed to accelerate 1kg from 0 to the speed of light (give or take a percent) at 10 m/s^2 is around 48 PentaJoules (4.8x10^16). If you could completely turn mass into energy (e=mc^2) you'd need a 500,000 kg mass of fuel.
Or in other terms, the two nuclear cores that I knew while growing up produce about 1,000 MegaWatts of electricty. That's 1,000 Million Joules per second. 1x10^9. So we are looking at 4.8X10^7 seconds to produce enough energy to send that 1kg off : 555 days. Strap a pair of them together and we start to have the sort of power required.
Except they don't weigh just 1kg...
Or in other terms, the two nuclear cores that I knew while growing up produce about 1,000 MegaWatts of electricty. That's 1,000 Million Joules per second. 1x10^9. So we are looking at 4.8X10^7 seconds to produce enough energy to send that 1kg off : 555 days. Strap a pair of them together and we start to have the sort of power required.
Except they don't weigh just 1kg...
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 29th, 2011 at 11:04:43 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitExcept they don't weigh just 1kg...
That's the rocketeer's eternal lament: you have to push the fuel along with the payload.
There's a way around it: don't carry the fuel with you.
For interstellar travel, this means using either 1) a hydrogen ramscoop or 2) a solar sail. they're both iffy, but seem safer than carrying tons of anti-matter.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 29th, 2011 at 12:34:28 PM
permalink
It's not just the fuel, you also need to carry the engine as well. And even if we want to get to sub-light speeds that mean the trip to Proxima Centauri is in a life time (~40 years) 1/10c, it's still a lot energy per kg.... so we'd have to be sucking up vast buckets of hydrogen to keep going. I'm pretty sure there's not enough free hydrogen in the interstellar voids to keep it all going.
In short... given what we know right now, inter-stellar travel is impractical, and possibly unlikely that it ever will be. This may mean there is nothing out there we can talk to anyways. Anyways, we are decades away (I think) from even escaping the immediate earth orbit with manned flight. Too many problems on spaceship Earth to deal with.
In short... given what we know right now, inter-stellar travel is impractical, and possibly unlikely that it ever will be. This may mean there is nothing out there we can talk to anyways. Anyways, we are decades away (I think) from even escaping the immediate earth orbit with manned flight. Too many problems on spaceship Earth to deal with.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 29th, 2011 at 1:04:37 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitI'm pretty sure there's not enough free hydrogen in the interstellar voids to keep it all going.
It will be interesting to find out...
You could also build a gigantic maglev track in space, say millions of kilometers long, each magnet powered by is own solar cell, and launch a ship that way. of course that would be a high-g maneuver. The crew would have to ride submerged in some fluid.
Quote:In short... given what we know right now, inter-stellar travel is impractical, and possibly unlikely that it ever will be.
Impractical, yes. Unlikely, no.
More like innevitable.
I'm sure you know the litnay: interstellar arks, seeder ships, cold sleep/suspended animation, remote probes, etc etc. SF writers have tackled all that and more (including my own take on the von Neumman machine concept).
Of course there are no real indications that any sort of FTL travel is possible. All I have to say is that if it's not, then that would be a terrible waste...
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 29th, 2011 at 1:25:13 PM
permalink
I'm aware of the speculative fiction writers ideas. I'm not convinced that it is inevitable. Intra-stellar travel, that I can buy. I'll be dead before it's even on the level of sending ships across the Atlantic in 1500's.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 29th, 2011 at 4:24:26 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitI'm aware of the speculative fiction writers ideas.
Cool. Every SF writer sooner or later tackles the problem. My very first short sotry, "Golden," takes place in an interstellar ark...
Quote:I'm not convinced that it is inevitable.
It's already happened, sorry....
Ok. Not really. But the Pionneer and Voyager spacecraft have already left the Solar System. True, they have no particular destination, nor the means to stop once they got there if they had, but they are traveling between stars and that's interstellar travel.
Of course it's the equivalent of throwing a bottle on the ocean and claiming it's travelling internationally.
Anway, provided we don't meet with a catastrophe, and let's not start that again, we will eventually get to the stars. If we wanted to abdly enough, we could launch a probe to Alpha Centauri within a decade or two. Of course it would take thousands of years to get there.
Right now the Voyagers are providing invaluable information on conditions just outside the System. In time we'll launch probes to reconnoiter farther, and faster. Within a century or so, we'll launch probes that can make 0.1 c and would reach the nearer stars within the lifetimes of people who were alive when they were launched.
Quote:Intra-stellar travel, that I can buy.
Intra-system, you mean. Intra-stellar means "within a star." I don't think we'll ever manage that. I hear tell ti gets a bit hot inside those gas balls :P
Quote:I'll be dead before it's even on the level of sending ships across the Atlantic in 1500's.
Maybe. It's nearly there. Some probes fail mechanically or electronically, but they all reach their target planet right on schedule.
BTW the fastest object ever launched is the probe on its way to Pluto, I forget its name. The fastest manned spacecraft were all the Apollos that went to the Moon and back.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 29th, 2011 at 5:35:07 PM
permalink
According to some NASA-affiliated scientists, aliens not only exist, but will destroy us if we don't reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Wow. And people thought GWB was insane.
Wow. And people thought GWB was insane.
August 29th, 2011 at 10:23:32 PM
permalink
If level two or three alien civilizations exist ( and I believe they may) then they may know how to communicate more effectively than by just using RF signals. Wouldn't they be more likely to communicate using a more efficient method? Perhaps using quantum entanglement? It would enable them to communicate nearly instantaneously over vast distances.
August 29th, 2011 at 10:29:18 PM
permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerAccording to some NASA-affiliated scientists, aliens not only exist, but will destroy us if we don't reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Wow. And people thought GWB was insane.
Nice way to miscategorize the report, which appears to be some sort of blue skies report about the possible ways first contact could occur and the results of such. Among other ideas they thought about Refuge Aliens (a la District 9) altruistic aliens (who might provide Uplift/technology) or hyper aggressive aliens. Interesting though experiment, I'm sure, but of course the weird out of the box thoughts are the ones that make the press sit up and take notice.
Aliens probably do exist. Aliens probably aren't about to knock on our door. No-one can say what those aliens would do if they came knocking. They might just be after our plastic reserves...
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 29th, 2011 at 10:31:55 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserIf level two or three alien civilizations exist ( and I believe they may) then they may know how to communicate more effectively than by just using RF signals. Wouldn't they be more likely to communicate using a more efficient method? Perhaps using quantum entanglement? It would enable them to communicate nearly instantaneously over vast distances.
Quantum Entanglement would at the very least require the shipping of one half of the tangled pair over the vast distance of space... once shipped, maybe that would speed up communications. My understanding of quantum entanglement is that it doesn't break laws of thermodynamics though and information can't been passed across the distance. But indeed... who knows what we don't know beyond the very narrowest of horizons. The wonder of science and humanities ability to explore the universe of potential ideas.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 29th, 2011 at 10:44:03 PM
permalink
My point is that manipulating matter may be a rather straight forward way for them to communicate and travel. Rather than hopping onto a space ship, perhaps they can quantum tunnel entangled particles over vast distances, enabling them to view and visit other planets without having to physically travel to them or by taking advantage of naturally occurring already entangled particles and atoms. ( In other words, they could take advantage quantum tunneling (possibly naturally occurring tunneling) to send 1/2 of an entangled particle over vast distances of space.
If you were a type two or three advanced civilization then why would you risk the hazards of interstellar space travel and the time required if you can manipulate matter?
If you were a type two or three advanced civilization then why would you risk the hazards of interstellar space travel and the time required if you can manipulate matter?
August 29th, 2011 at 10:51:06 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitQuote: ItsCalledSoccerAccording to some NASA-affiliated scientists, aliens not only exist, but will destroy us if we don't reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Wow. And people thought GWB was insane.
Nice way to miscategorize the report, which appears to be some sort of blue skies report about the possible ways first contact could occur and the results of such. Among other ideas they thought about Refuge Aliens (a la District 9) altruistic aliens (who might provide Uplift/technology) or hyper aggressive aliens. Interesting though experiment, I'm sure, but of course the weird out of the box thoughts are the ones that make the press sit up and take notice.
I'd think that greenhouse gas emissions wouldn't be the biggest giveaway that we've got technology. It'd be the radio signals we've been blasting into space since the 1920s, or perhaps the much stronger radio signals that we blasted into space when we did nuke testing in the 40s and 50s. Greenhouse gas emissions are cyclical anyway, but there's no natural explanation for nuclear fission (as far as we know...)
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
August 30th, 2011 at 7:00:07 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistGreenhouse gas emissions are cyclical anyway, but there's no natural explanation for nuclear fission (as far as we know...)
That's so funny. You're saying there's no natural explanation for a natural phenomenon? Nuclear fission goes on all the time in a variety of elements, some of them quite light even. In fact, the Earth is not a solid mass of rock in part because of the heat generated by natural fission processes.
But if you mean to say there is no natural cause for nuclear fission explosions on the kiloton scale and above, then you'd be right.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
