And some people still aren’t sure if there is other life beyond Earth. :) That's entire galaxies. Not just stars, and that's just the observable universe. We are still being surprised by the lifeforms we observe here on Earth, and the environments and conditions they can thrive in (including the outer hulls of our spacecraft), and we still have yet to discover and catalog all the life on our planet. Life may even com…
We don't know the probability of life arising from matter. We haven't replicated that emergence yet. If that p is something like 1/10^100 due to some compounding factors, we are alone in the observable universe.
Observable Universe contains 10x more galaxies than previously thought (2016)
11–20 of 161 posts
Re: Observable Universe contains 10x more galaxies than previously thought (2016)
#12Re: Observable Universe contains 10x more galaxies than previously thought (2016)
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Infinity is fun :) It reminds me of that (totally wrong) quote in The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy that the population of the universe is mathematically zero. The Universe is a very big thing that contains a great number of planets and a great number of beings. It is Everything. What we live in. All around us. The lot. Not nothing. It is quite difficult to actually define what the Universe means, but fortunately t…
I realise I'm arguing against a work of comedy, but: > But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are. There are infinities of different sizes
Re: Observable Universe contains 10x more galaxies than previously thought (2016)
#14And some people still aren’t sure if there is other life beyond Earth. :) That's entire galaxies. Not just stars, and that's just the observable universe. We are still being surprised by the lifeforms we observe here on Earth, and the environments and conditions they can thrive in (including the outer hulls of our spacecraft), and we still have yet to discover and catalog all the life on our planet. Life may even com…
Infinity is fun :) It reminds me of that (totally wrong) quote in The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy that the population of the universe is mathematically zero. The Universe is a very big thing that contains a great number of planets and a great number of beings. It is Everything. What we live in. All around us. The lot. Not nothing. It is quite difficult to actually define what the Universe means, but fortunately t…
> Area: The area of the Universe is infinite.
Right now there is more evidence for the universe to be finite rather than infinite.
But apart from that: Just because it has no borders doesn't mean it is infinite. This is a classic failure in understanding infinity. For example, the area of the surface of a torus is finite, yet when living on a torus surface you won't find any borders. Same for higher dimensions.
> Imports: None. This is a by product of infinity; it is impossible to import things into something that has infinite volume because by definition there is no outside to import things from.
This has nothing to do with infinity. This is solely due to the definition of a universe.
A finite universe doesn't import anything as well, and this is no contradiction whatsoever.
Also, an inifinitely large "part" can still import and export, despite being infinite. For example, take an infinite universe and split it into two halfs. Those "parts" import and export, despite being infinite.
Re: Observable Universe contains 10x more galaxies than previously thought (2016)
#15And some people still aren’t sure if there is other life beyond Earth. :) That's entire galaxies. Not just stars, and that's just the observable universe. We are still being surprised by the lifeforms we observe here on Earth, and the environments and conditions they can thrive in (including the outer hulls of our spacecraft), and we still have yet to discover and catalog all the life on our planet. Life may even com…
> How, when given the evidence of practically infinite planets out there (considering that almost every star may have at least one planet, and there are even rogue planets [0] that don't orbit any star, and that asteroids and comets or even dense nebulas could also harbor life), can we even consider the possibility that this is the only planet with life?
Who gives a shit?
If our spaceships landed on a distant planet populated by a vast hyper-intelligent civilization of decidedly not-alive robots, would we shrug, say "no life here," and head home bored?
Maybe life isn't what we're looking for?
Maybe chemistry is not so poor that it has to repeat itself by re-creating something that we would consider to be alive. Maybe the non-living things are vastly more interesting.
Maybe finding distant life is like visiting a distant country and finding a McDonalds.
Maybe "let's find life" is just a failure of imagination. It's SETI, not SETL.
Re: Observable Universe contains 10x more galaxies than previously thought (2016)
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't know the probability of life arising from matter. We haven't replicated that emergence yet. If that p is something like 1/10^100 due to some compounding factors, we are alone in the observable universe.
You'll never know that value with any certainty as there may be multiple ways life could emerge from non-life on Earth (not just one) and ways it could emerge on other worlds that we could not know.
Re: Observable Universe contains 10x more galaxies than previously thought (2016)
#17And some people still aren’t sure if there is other life beyond Earth. :) That's entire galaxies. Not just stars, and that's just the observable universe. We are still being surprised by the lifeforms we observe here on Earth, and the environments and conditions they can thrive in (including the outer hulls of our spacecraft), and we still have yet to discover and catalog all the life on our planet. Life may even com…
- Jupiter & Saturn pick out most of the comets, so we encounter massive reset only very rarely
- thanx to hitting other planet long time ago, we have a spinning molten metal core inside planet generating magnetic shield for all nasty radiation
- moon gives us tides & stability
- our sun is just the right size and age to be stable
- we're located at quiet part of the galaxy, which itself is pretty stable
I think some primitive life (ie stromatolytes equivalent) can exist on many places, simply because it happened on our planet very early when it was very violent place to be - so random arrangement of matter into self-reproduction is feasible.
But to evolve into specialized multi-cellular organisms took more than billion of years, a step that might not happen at all.
And to create an intelligent life is another massive step up (or accident). There is Drake equation to manifest it, but basically all variables in it can be anything including 0, so it's kind of useless.
So from my perspective there are couple of options:
- universe is too young (if you consider average star age compared to estimated universe age), so we're one of the first sentient arrivals, others are behind in evolution
- we're just not interesting enough to be contacted by superior races - just look at the news, I wouldn't blame them. We're 'meh' category at best, although most like to think of themselves in very different perspective
- we're fucking alone, weird random anomaly (by far the most scary option of them all)
There is a wonderful TV series from BBC called Earth: Power of the Planet, which explores this topic to great details, highly recommended!
Re: Observable Universe contains 10x more galaxies than previously thought (2016)
#18And some people still aren’t sure if there is other life beyond Earth. :) That's entire galaxies. Not just stars, and that's just the observable universe. We are still being surprised by the lifeforms we observe here on Earth, and the environments and conditions they can thrive in (including the outer hulls of our spacecraft), and we still have yet to discover and catalog all the life on our planet. Life may even com…
Me, I think there is no life beyond Earth. > How, when given the evidence of practically infinite planets out there (considering that almost every star may have at least one planet, and there are even rogue planets [0] that don't orbit any star, and that asteroids and comets or even dense nebulas could also harbor life), can we even consider the possibility that this is the only planet with life? Who gives a shit? If…
The thing about searching for "life" over "intelligence" is that life doesn't necessarily need to be intelligent for it to be interesting.
I also think the SETI example you've made is a tad unfair because their process dictates that their search be for intelligence (crudely put, radio transmissions). Whereas when you're visiting a planet, you can observe a wider scope of life as it need not be intelligent (as we can perceive anyway) for markers to be identified.
Re: Observable Universe contains 10x more galaxies than previously thought (2016)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll never know that value with any certainty as there may be multiple ways life could emerge from non-life on Earth (not just one) and ways it could emerge on other worlds that we could not know.
This is an equally excellent argument that aliens speak English.
At the same time, it's extremely likely we never encounter them.