PDA

View Full Version : Life On Other Planets


RAMESH
02-21-2007, 03:44 PM
i'm no science kid but what has always fascinated me was the thought of life on other planets
it's not impossable to imagine since every star u see is actually suns & alot of these suns got planets orbiting them
they say that our sun is an average one & there is millions of them in the universe
so it is fair to say that there has to be life out there
what's your take on this?

GAYLORD
02-21-2007, 03:55 PM
well, scientists say that itīs pretty unlikely - at least for humanoide life.

The distances in space make me doubt we get in contact.

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 04:07 PM
why is it unlikely for humanoide life?

GAYLORD
02-21-2007, 04:08 PM
because as far as they searched space no planets were found with similar conditions.

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 04:12 PM
we haven't seen a fraction of the universe of the ever expanding universe
if i'm not mistaken we only managed to see 2 planets out of our galaxy & that is only 2 out of 100's of millions that's out there

GAYLORD
02-21-2007, 04:16 PM
im not sure on that. ok, just a fraction and they only assume. but so far nothing.

but maybe thatīs not the point of discussion here.

what do you think? what do you expect? does it matter?

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 04:26 PM
i'm a deep thinker & somtimes i think about the future
the earth is not going to last forever but we got the ability to be around much longer than that
obstacle being like u said is distance even at light speed the nearest star is like 100's of years away i think
we would have to find a destination
build space ships the size of africa on the moon or out of the earths orbit
there is alot of obstacles
it doesn't matter now but it's going to oneday

Gawd
02-21-2007, 04:27 PM
most planets are simply balls of gas and shit.......
but 'life' can be considered a 1 celled organisim etc

Crackhead Bob
02-21-2007, 04:27 PM
well, scientists say that itīs pretty unlikely - at least for humanoide life.

The distances in space make me doubt we get in contact.

possibilities.... thats what carl sagan used to say.....
who says we have to be the one to do the contact?
the universe is trillions of years old humans are 100s of millions of years old
someone must have gotten a head start somewhere right?
scientists for the most part have their own "god" complex in that it is easier to say there isnt life in the universe rather than convince a planet chock full of religious fanatics(see republicans) that there could be life out there....
is this the only planet with water on it?
if not, then you have to assume there is at least microbiotic life on other worlds
comets are comprised of rock and ice,
if a comet hits a planet, that comet introduces water to that planet
water creates life
while it is true that another planet having the exact composition as this 1 sutable for life is unlikely, it is not impossible.
besides who says this composition of atmosphere, water, elements, is even necessary for life?
life could come from other sources, remember nature always find a way eventually.....
just some thoughts from an open-minded guy who is not swayed by religion in the least.....

GAYLORD
02-21-2007, 04:30 PM
possibilities.... thats what carl sagan used to say.....
who says we have to be the one to do the contact?
the universe is trillions of years old humans are 100s of millions of years old
someone must have gotten a head start somewhere right?
scientists for the most part have their own "god" complex in that it is easier to say there isnt life in the universe rather than convince a planet chock full of religious fanatics(see republicans) that there could be life out there....
is this the only planet with water on it?
if not, then you have to assume there is at least microbiotic life on other worlds
comets are comprised of rock and ice,
if a comet hits a planet, that comet introduces water to that planet
water creates life
while it is true that another planet having the exact composition as this 1 sutable for life is unlikely, it is not impossible.
besides who says this composition of atmosphere, water, elements, is even necessary for life?
life could come from other sources, remember nature always find a way eventually.....
just some thoughts from an open-minded guy who is not swayed by religion in the least.....

i absolutely agree.

Do you think that when contact takes place there will be war?

Crackhead Bob
02-21-2007, 04:32 PM
i absolutely agree.

Do you think that when contact takes place there will be war?

we better hope not, any species of creature capable of travelling millions of light years could surely destroy us all in a matter of minutes.....

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 04:33 PM
if the sun is just an average star it's not to hard to believe that there could be alot of planets like earth out there

Gawd
02-21-2007, 04:34 PM
if the sun is just an average star it's not to hard to believe that there could be alot of planets like earth out there

scientists agree that the absolute right conditions have to be in place to sustain life as we know it. plus our sun is small compared to most stars

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 04:35 PM
if we do find a planet with life it is going to be war we going to invade them & take their land they will do the same to us

Gawd
02-21-2007, 04:36 PM
i doubt that
say we found a planet. how do you then get an invasion army there? and one big enough to actually take over shit?

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 04:39 PM
scientists agree that the absolute right conditions have to be in place to sustain life as we know it. plus our sun is small compared to most stars

yes it would have to have the right conditions & i'm sure there must be alot of planets that do
as for the sun i heard it's average but even if it's not there are alot that is like ours & even for bigger suns i'm sure planets could sirculate them that could have right condition for it to be habatable

Crackhead Bob
02-21-2007, 04:40 PM
i doubt that
say we found a planet. how do you then get an invasion army there? and one big enough to actually take over shit?

ya wouldnt you be too tired from the trip?

anyway, invasion is a stupid risky proposition, it would be much easier to destroy all life biologically, or thermally then move in and steal all their natural resources.

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 04:42 PM
i doubt that
say we found a planet. how do you then get an invasion army there? and one big enough to actually take over shit?
like i said we need to build space ships the size of africa
the biggest problem would be to find the planet but i'm sure by then we would have the right technology

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 04:45 PM
ya wouldnt you be too tired from the trip?

anyway, invasion is a stupid risky proposition, it would be much easier to destroy all life biologically, or thermally then move in and steal all their natural resources.
no the ships will be so huge u will have your own lab to chill it will be quite ghetto because resoures will have to be used wisely
we have to invade because we need to get off the ships
why take the resources if you can just use it there

Crackhead Bob
02-21-2007, 04:45 PM
like i said we need to build space ships the size of africa
the biggest problem would be to find the planet but i'm sure by then we would have the right technology

my question is why?
there gotta be plenty of planets with resources why try and take one infested with creatures?

Gawd
02-21-2007, 04:46 PM
this convo is dumb imo.....we havent found life and you want to discuss invading a planet full of life that we have yet to find or even imagine how to travel too.

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 04:49 PM
my question is why?
there gotta be plenty of planets with resources why try and take one infested with creatures?
i would think that planets with the right resources to maintain life should already have life
they not going to be cool with space ships with millions of people just chillin on their planet

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 04:51 PM
this convo is dumb imo.....we havent found life and you want to discuss invading a planet full of life that we have yet to find or even imagine how to travel too.
it's a stoners conversation

Crackhead Bob
02-21-2007, 04:56 PM
terraforming would be much likelier solution than invasion, in fact scientists are working on that already....

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 04:59 PM
what is terraforming?

Crackhead Bob
02-21-2007, 05:02 PM
terra=earth
forming=forming

taking a planet or moon and converting the atmosphere and land to that which is suitable for life

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 05:11 PM
that sounds like a great idea

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 05:12 PM
humans as much as you would like to kill them all u can't live without them

Crackhead Bob
02-21-2007, 05:13 PM
humans as much as you would like to kill them all u can't live without them

you sound like a misanthrope like me....

RAMESH
02-21-2007, 05:16 PM
what does misanthrope mean?

Crackhead Bob
02-21-2007, 05:28 PM
what does misanthrope mean?

one who hates or distrusts his fellow man, and has a general dislike for society as a whole

misanthropes are different from racists in that racists single out groups of people , misanthropes hate everybody equally

the silencer
02-21-2007, 05:35 PM
i havent read the thread yet (im sorry, but im gonna)...but i'll just say this:

our sun is one of 100s of BILLIONS of stars in the Milky Way galaxy...

the Milky Way galaxy is one of 100s of BILLIONS of GALAXIES!!!!

try to consider that...

by mathematical probabilty there HAS to be life on another planet somewhere....but space is so vast that we will never ever know..

nothing travels faster than light..if there was another solar system with life in it IN OUR OWN GALAXY, its likely that light would take millions of years to travel between us and them...so we will never know about each other..

Black Man
02-21-2007, 05:50 PM
i'm no science kid but what has always fascinated me was the thought of life on other planets
it's not impossable to imagine since every star u see is actually suns & alot of these suns got planets orbiting them
they say that our sun is an average one & there is millions of them in the universe
so it is fair to say that there has to be life out there
what's your take on this?

Yes there is life throughout the universe. The universe itself is life.

Crackhead Bob
02-21-2007, 06:06 PM
Yes there is life throughout the universe. The universe itself is life.

wow thats deep man

ujesus
02-21-2007, 07:17 PM
Ok so scientist say that there has to certain conditions found on a plant to find life. But thats only life as we know it.

think about that.

the silencer
02-21-2007, 08:07 PM
Ok so scientist say that there has to certain conditions found on a plant to find life. But thats only life as we know it.

think about that.
i used to wonder that too but i had it explained to me better...

its not "life" that scientists are looking the conditions for...its organic matter...and organic matter can be found on a few moons in our own solar system...so not too long ago there was (and still is, IIRC) the thought that there could be some forms of life on some of the moons here....

i think its Titan and Europa...i forget which planet they orbit

also, the conditions wood have to be such that organic matter wouldn't be destroyed by rays from the sun or so ice cold from being far from the sun that there is no movement of electrons...

and "life" would take a need a pretty long time to evolve even if the so-called conditions were good...

so a star that just burns out relatively quickly won't be able to sustain life obviously.....and a really young star probably doesnt have any planets with life...

theres alota shit to consider....i suggest looking up some of Carl Sagan's work...he is a brilliant astronomer who has wondered about this many times

bizzlez
02-21-2007, 08:19 PM
I believe in other Earth's. Like after this one, another one will be created.

RAMESH
02-22-2007, 02:21 AM
one who hates or distrusts his fellow man, and has a general dislike for society as a whole

misanthropes are different from racists in that racists single out groups of people , misanthropes hate everybody equally
yea i'm a misanthorope

RAMESH
02-22-2007, 02:23 AM
atleast somtimes i am

RAMESH
02-22-2007, 02:27 AM
i havent read the thread yet (im sorry, but im gonna)...but i'll just say this:

our sun is one of 100s of BILLIONS of stars in the Milky Way galaxy...

the Milky Way galaxy is one of 100s of BILLIONS of GALAXIES!!!!

try to consider that...

by mathematical probabilty there HAS to be life on another planet somewhere....but space is so vast that we will never ever know..

nothing travels faster than light..if there was another solar system with life in it IN OUR OWN GALAXY, its likely that light would take millions of years to travel between us and them...so we will never know about each other..

unless we can jump through space like that ship event horizon

Visionz
02-22-2007, 02:39 AM
unless we can jump through space like that ship event horizonI think theres a theory that wormholes like that could be possible

RAMESH
02-22-2007, 03:28 AM
If black holes and the Big Bang befuddle you, try wrapping your brain around this one: The entire universe may have been created in an explosion inside a black hole.
"It's a mathematically plausible model which refines the standard model of the Big Bang," said Blake Temple, a mathematician at the University of California, Davis.
The standard model holds that the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang is described not as an explosion so much as a rapid outflow of material from a point of nearly infinite density. It is a theory, one among several (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html) attempting to describe the observed expansion of the universe today. It has not been proved.
The Big Bang has been compared to black holes before, because the tremendous crush of matter that defines a black hole is much like the unfathomable density that preceded the Big Bang. Both phenomena are termed singularities.
In the proposed modification to the standard model, the Big Bang is an actual explosion, Temple explained today in a statement, and it occurs within a black hole in an existing space. The shock wave of the explosion is expanding into an infinite space.
Temple also describes the whole scenario as a white hole, the theoretical opposite of a black hole because it tosses matter outward instead of pulling it in.
White holes have been talked about before, mostly as mathematical curiosities. There is no evidence these "anti-black holes" exist, whereas scientists have solid evidence for the presence of black holes.
Eventually, Temple says, the universe will emerge from all this as something like an exploded star, called a supernova, but on an enormously large scale. He said the new theory satisfies Einstein's equations in the General Theory of Relativity, which gave rise to the Big Bang theory.
Temple can't say where the matter we see today originally came from. What existed before the Big Bang? This, in fact, is a thorn in the side of all cosmologists, and it may never be answered because we can't see time and space as it existed prior to time as we know it.
But Temple and colleague Joel Smoller, from the University of Michigan, wrote recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
"It is natural to wonder if there is a connection between the mass that disappears into black hole singularities and the mass that emerges from white hole singularities."
And it remains to be seen, or more likely not, whether any of this is true.

RAMESH
02-22-2007, 03:41 AM
The wormhole idea comes from Einstein's theory of general relativity itself using "Schwartzschild geometry", a way of inscribing a space-time coordinate system on the highly curved space in the vicinity of a black hole. A wormhole is a funnel-shaped tunnel that can connect one complete universe with another or can connect two separated regions of the same universe. In the latter case it is a short path connecting two distant locations in space. Thus it the SF writer's dream, a spatial shortcut that a space traveler might use to bypass the speed-of-light barrier and travel almost instantaneously from one place to another within our universe.

However, there is a basic problem with wormholes as a transport system. Wormholes, as described by the equations of general relativity, are dismayingly unstable. In fact, any wormhole connection that happens to form between two points in space should pinch closed again so rapidly that neither material objects nor light-beam messages can pass across the wormhole "bridge" during its brief existence. Thus a wormhole, at least in its pristine form, is unsuitable for the instantaneous space transport that SF writers may have in mind.

Most physicists will find this result very satisfying, for it avoids a sumultaneity paradox. Einstein's special theory of relativity treats space-time in a very even-handed and symmetric way. It requires a complete equivalence of "inertial reference frames", space-time coordinate systems moving through space with any constant speed (including zero). These must be equivalent by any internal measurement that would single out one such frame as special. For example, no measurements made inside a spaceship traveling at near light-speed can show different results from similar measurements made when the ship was at rest in space. In special relativity "at rest in space" is a meaningless concept, since that condition is undetectable.

Thus, a semi-permanent wormhole would present a problem for special relativity not only because it would breach the light-speed barrier but also because the reference-frame symmetry would be broken. If a wormhole connection between separated regions of space existed only long enough to permit a message to be sent, it would seem that a reference-frame test could be made that would single out one reference frame as "preferred". Absolute space would be detected and defined.

The satisfying instability of wormholes has now been called into question. Last Fall a paper by Michael Morris, Kip Thorne, and Ulvi Yurtsever was published in the conservative and prestigious journal Physical Review Letters which changes all this. The authors describe how an "advanced civilization" might: (a) create a large wormhole; (b) stabilize it to prevent its re-collapse; and (c) convert it to a time machine, a device for traveling or at least communicating back and forth in time. This remarkable paper, which borders on science fiction in its approach, has a very serious purpose. There is presently no well-established theory that can accommodate both quantum mechanics and the physics of strong gravitational fields within the same mathematical framework. The paper of Morris, Thorne, and Yurtsever is a vehicle for guessing, in a rather unorthodox way, what restrictions a proper theory of quantum gravity might place on the physics of wormholes. The authors demonstrate that general relativity contains within its framework mechanisms that appear to permit both faster-than-light travel and time travel. If these physical calamities are to be averted, the authors argue, it can only be done through a proper theory of quantum gravity.

To devotees of science fiction, however, these aren't calamities at all but delightful prospects. So let's discuss how Morris, Thorne, and Yurtsever propose to create a stable wormhole, with the idea that someday we may be able to build one (or at least write a good story about it). Empty space, when examined with quantum theory on a sufficiently small distance scale, is not empty at all. Even at nuclear dimensions (10-13 cm) empty space is filled with particle-antiparticle pairs that are continually flashing into a brief existence, bankrolled on the credit of borrowed mass-energy, only to wink out of existence again as the law of conservation of energy reasserts itself. If the length-scale is contracted to a size appropriate to quantum gravity (10-33 cm) this quantum fireworks intensifies to a "quantum foam" of violent fluctuations in the topology and geometry of space itself. Quantum black holes form and vanish in a span of time of 10-23 seconds; highly curved and convoluted regions of space in ant physically allowed configuration have a similarly brief existence. In this environment Morris, Thorne, and Yurtsever speculate, it my be possible for a civilization considerably more advanced than ours, by "pulling a wormhole out of the quantum foam and enlarging it to classical size" to create a connection between two nearby points in space. This would use the well-known quantum mechanical process called "tunneling", a jump from one allowed energy state to another across a barrier of intermediate states that are forbidden by energy conservation.

To stabilize the wormhole pulled from the quantum foam, preventing its immediate recollapse, Morris, Thorne, and Yurtsever propose to use an electric field of such enormous strength that it creates enough energy in the mouth of the wormhole to force it to remain open. They suggest that this might be accomplished by placing a pair of spheres with equal electric charges at the two spatial entrances of the wormhole. The spheres would be held in place by a delicate balance, the force of their gravitational attraction just offsetting the force of their electrical repulsion. Such a system might be very small, an atom-scale opening permitting the passage of only a few photons at a time, or it might be large enough to pass a large vehicle.

Having produced this stabilized wormhole the engineering can begin. The size of the connection can be enlarged or contracted depending on energy considerations. The two portal ends of the wormhole connection can be separated from each other. For example, a portal placed aboard a space ship might be carried to some location many light years away. Such a trip might require a long time, but during the trip and afterwards instantaneous communication and transport through the wormhole would be available. The ship could even be supplied with fuel and provisions through the portal. A similar scenario has already been described in Poul Anderson's The Enemy Stars, in which starships were required to travel at sub-light speeds, but they carried onboard matter transmitters that permitted instantaneous transmission of crew and supplies from Earth.

This brings us to the last point of the Morris, Thorne, and Yurtsever paper, the construction of a time machine. Suppose that initially a wormhole establishes a connection between two spatial points A and B that have no motion with respect to each other and are simultaneous in time. By "simultaneous", a slippery concept in relativity, we mean that an observer at A who determines a clock reading at B would get the same reading via normal space (by light beam signals corrected for transit time, for example) as he would through the wormhole.

Now suppose, in the spirit of the Twin Paradox of special relativity, that portal B is placed aboard a space ship while portal A remains on Earth. The ship carrying B, say, accelerates rapidly to 86.6% of light speed and travels a distance of one light-year, then reverses its course and returns to Earth at the same speed. On its arrival portals A and B are placed near one another. At 86.6% of the velocity of light any clock aboard the ship will run at just half the speed of a similar clock on Earth due to relativistic time dilation. Therefore at the end of the trip the ship's clock will be one year slow, as compared to an identical clock that remained on Earth. And, as Morris, Thorne, and Yurtsever point out, portal B will also be one year slow as compared with portal A. Now a message sent through B to A will emerge one year in the future of B, and a message sent through A to B will emerge one year in the past of A! Similarly a traveler making the same trips through the wormhole will travel one year into the future or the past. The wormhole connection through space has been transformed to a connection through time, a wormhole time machine.

Does this device, embodying faster-than-light space travel as well as time travel, demonstrate that special relativity is wrong? Does it show that Einstein's speed limit had been defeated? Not at all. The restrictions usually associated with special relativity implicitly assume that no time travel is possible. Clearly one could travel, in effect, at an infinite velocity by traveling from one place to another at some sub-light velocity and then on arrival traveling backwards in time to the instant of departure. To put it another way, the simultaneity measurements prohibited by special relativity must lead to a definite and unambiguous determination of the simultaneous readings of two clocks separated in space. The clock-comparisons made possible by wormholes are not definite, because one clock could be in the future of the other, displaced by any time interval produced by the travel histories of the portals. Special relativity, which after all is embedded in the theory of general relativity that produced these revelations about wormhole physics, is preserved.

The law of physics that would be destroyed by the construction of a wormhole space-time connection is causality, the mysterious principle that prohibits communication backwards in time, that requires a cause to precede its effects in time sequence in all space-time reference frames. Causality as a law of the universe would not survive even a two-way communications link across time, let alone a portal permitting trans-time matter transmission.
The principal purpose of Morris, Thorne, and Yurtsever in discussing what an advanced civilization might do with wormholes, as mentioned above, is to demonstrate in effect that if causality is to be preserved as a law of physics, it must be saved at the quantum level. Quantum gravity, a theory-to-be which has not yet been developed, must impose some new physical limitations that make impossible the production of stable wormholes by the Morris-Thorne-Yurtsever scenario. General relativity, our present theory of gravity, prohibits neither faster-than-light space travel nor time travel with wormholes, but it does require that the two go together. Writers of hard SF should have fun with that one!

RAMESH
02-22-2007, 03:42 AM
i know it's a long ass read but u should check it out

Visionz
02-22-2007, 04:37 AM
Even at nuclear dimensions (10-13 cm) empty space is filled with particle-antiparticle pairs that are continually flashing into a brief existence, bankrolled on the credit of borrowed mass-energy, only to wink out of existence again as the law of conservation of energy reasserts itselfThis kinda acknowledge something I've always felt to be true.
Dope post. At the end I had to read it twice to completely get my head around its but very interesting stuff. good lookin out










This, in fact, is a thorn in the side of all cosmologists, and it may never be answered because we can't see time and space as it existed prior to time as we know it. so true, lol nature will always keep atleast some of her secrets forever

J-Cee
02-22-2007, 06:03 AM
well, scientists say that itīs pretty unlikely - at least for humanoide life.

The distances in space make me doubt we get in contact.

yeh but scientists say alot of things...scientists also said that y2k would casue chaos worldwide..what happened..lol

Dr.Weird
02-22-2007, 02:34 PM
It would be ignorant and niave to think we were the only living things, think how big the universe is

LHX
02-22-2007, 02:37 PM
on my planet, we dont talk about this stuff very much

RAMESH
02-22-2007, 02:47 PM
i wonder if einstein smoked weed
he looks like a weed smoker