Do you believe in aliens(extra terrestrials)?

All this about finite mass... I don't really believe it. In the universe, it all seems "infinite". Why can black holes have infinite mass and still weight 0 grams? That's like all matter exists in one place, meaning it could defy conventional laws that more matter takes more space and weights more.
Then there's the white holes. The exact opposite of black holes. So are they infinite mass in one place or no mass at all in one place?

As for the whole nothing is faster than light theory, I don't believe it. We have constantly searched for the smallest possible building stones of our environment, and have yet to find it. Ie, it seems infinitely small. Just another building block after another.
So what is to say that there isn't infinite amount of possible speeds, beyond light speed?
For that matter, couldn't we use white holes to travel through the universe in a distant future?
Space travel is very likely possible, just not yet.

I do agree with time, though. It is a strange thing, yet it seems to be a product of our brain and relative to each of us.

Also given the "infinite" amounts of possible chemical compositions, who is to say there is not intelligent life elsewhere? Saying not so would be like denying everything around us. It's just too high a possibility.
If there are infinite, or ever expanding, planets or mass out there, then there must be an infinite chance of possible life, no?

I think that if the universe had infinite mass, the Law of Conservation of Mass would be rather difficult to explain. If mass could be infinite then there is no reason why it shouldn't be created and destroyed on a regular basis.

Quote:

---

So what is to say that there isn't infinite amount of possible speeds, beyond light speed?
For that matter, couldn't we use white holes to travel through the universe in a distant future?
Space travel is very likely possible, just not yet.

---

I am somewhat grateful that science is more than random ass guessing. We can discount the possibility while there isn't a good hypothesis to test and no evidence to speak of.

And yeah, none of this makes alien life any more likely.

hmm... Well, one strange thing is that everyone on here seems to belive in the big bang and not any other religion xD and no, I'm not revealing my beliefs in this post, they're are irrelevant xP

The thing that absolutely astounds me is that almost 20% of the people here DON'T believe in aliens. I can't see how it would be possible to have such an ENORMOUS universe with only one habited planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

I think that if the universe had infinite mass, the Law of Conservation of Mass would be rather difficult to explain. If mass could be infinite then there is no reason why it shouldn't be created and destroyed on a regular basis.

---

A law is not a definite thing, however. The physics laws have been changed over time, as well. And there are no less than two hypothesises, I believe, none of which are exact is describing how things work, so yeah, I'm believing that that law would probably fail when and if we get more understanding of how things work.

Quote:

---

And yeah, none of this makes alien life any more likely.

---

Infinite / 10^(-1 000 000) = Infinite?

Ah yes, there is also more to the time phenomenon than merely out perception. The body and all living things change over time.
And yet, the closer we come to the speed of light, the less that changes over time.
So it indeed a thing of our perception of one thing, yet it is not?

I don't, 'cause I'm too ignorant >: D
Humans are not only the rulers of earth, but space too! xP
Meh, to be honest, I don't really care if some aliens live in a distant place somewhere... For those who do, why don't you start building a space rocket and start searching? xP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Ah yes, there is also more to the time phenomenon than merely out perception. The body and all living things change over time.
And yet, the closer we come to the speed of light, the less that changes over time.
So it indeed a thing of our perception of one thing, yet it is not?

---

Time is a boundary which gives us the freedom to act as autonomous, conscious beings. You don't have the freedom to do absolutely anything, however -- for example you cannot change the physical laws that govern the realm in which you must live as a biological organism. They are some great laws tho, because they did auto-generate us.

But machines are not as restricted. That is why we must, must, must develop super-computers that can invent spacetime eventually, or else just give up and let some bunch of aliens do it for us. The fact that we are here now is proof positive that this is what is going to happen, one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akkernight

hmm... Well, one strange thing is that everyone on here seems to belive in the big bang and not any other religion xD and no, I'm not revealing my beliefs in this post, they're are irrelevant xP

---

The only version of the Big Bang I believe is when Xenu brought all those thetans to Teegeeack and dropped hydrogen bombs on them 75 million years ago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ಠ_ಠ

The only version of the Big Bang I believe is when Xenu brought all those thetans to Teegeeack and dropped hydrogen bombs on them 75 million years ago

---

Am I the only one that doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ಠ_ಠ

The only version of the Big Bang I believe is when Xenu brought all those thetans to Teegeeack and dropped hydrogen bombs on them 75 million years ago

---

Shhh! Ixnay!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

But how could it "exist" without time?

---

Time cannot start without time, because an event (big bang) can only occur when time exists, therefore time has always existed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxorator

Time cannot start without time, because an event (big bang) can only occur when time exists, therefore time has always existed.

---

Maybe in your space-time continuum. :p
If space & time are linked together, then how could time exist if there was no space?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

Am I the only one that doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about?

---

probably

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

A law is not a definite thing, however. The physics laws have been changed over time, as well. And there are no less than two hypothesises, I believe, none of which are exact is describing how things work, so yeah, I'm believing that that law would probably fail when and if we get more understanding of how things work.


Infinite / 10^(-1 000 000) = Infinite?

Ah yes, there is also more to the time phenomenon than merely out perception. The body and all living things change over time.
And yet, the closer we come to the speed of light, the less that changes over time.
So it indeed a thing of our perception of one thing, yet it is not?

---

Well let me be honest and say I'm having a hard time comprehending your English. I understand infinity as a concept, but it's rather illogical to think infinity exists as a real number. I mean, you cannot have an infinite number of finite things. If we had infinite mass in the universe then mass could not be a real constant.

In response to your earlier confusion: Mass is also a different measurement from weight. Weight is proportional to the force of gravity. You could lose weight by going to the moon. So, even if something has infinite mass, which it shouldn't, but it should be weightless in space.

These are more like annoying side discussions, really, than about the possibility of alien life. I could be wrong here, and still not be convinced that this makes alien life more possible. In my opinion we are all debating about separate things we don't understand; I've never been a proponent of that.

IMO whiteflags is just playing bug-in-a-rug.

A commonplace, conservative philosophy of science would tell us there is nothing to be gained from hypothesizing "as if" the accepted, demonstrable (aka. "proven"), laws of physics were ad hoc or provisional.

But dollars to donuts that was not how Einstein looked at the universe.

ps. I don't see any problems in Elysia's English, either.

Quote:

---

IMO whiteflags is just playing bug-in-a-rug. [...] ps. I don't see any problems in Elysia's English, either.

---

Really, I'd just like to see things get back on topic. As far as I'm concerned, Elysia's position is something like this: "Never discount a possibility, especially since there is an infinite amount of stuff in the universe. Because of this alien life is infinitely likely." That doesn't make any sense, and even if it does to someone else, it just seems like a convenient way to tie in all the other pseudoscience being discussed in the thread.

I mean, ultimately, do you have to discuss this while discussing aliens? Hasn't anyone read Rare Earth? I'd just like to see the conversation move from the abstract bullcrap that we've spent so much time on. It's getting really uninteresting for me to read since we've strayed so far from the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Hasn't anyone read Rare Earth?

---

Oh god, is that one of those religious psueudo-science books that tries to convince people that we are the only life in the entire gigantic universe? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

Maybe in your space-time continuum. :p
If space & time are linked together, then how could time exist if there was no space?

---

Time and space aren't linked - space is real, time is imaginary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

Oh god, is that one of those religious psueudo-science books that tries to convince people that we are the only life in the entire gigantic universe?

---

Yep. Well, it's one astronomer's opinion, anyway. I dunno if I would call it pseudoscience... it more or less explains why everything's just right with Earth, and supposes that alien life would need similar protection in order to keep existing. For example, Earth has a big magnetic field which filters most of the harmful rays in sunlight. So in essence, if alien life existed, it's probably on another Earth-like planet (Mars? I'unno).

Quote:

---

Time cannot start without time, because an event (big bang) can only occur when time exists, therefore time has always existed.

---

Quote:

---

Time and space aren't linked - space is real, time is imaginary.

---

There was noone to imagine time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxorator

Time and space aren't linked - space is real, time is imaginary.

---

Time isn't imaginary. It's a dimension, just like Length, Width & Height.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

Time isn't imaginary. It's a dimension, just like Length, Width & Height.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

---

And my hair is green.

Theories like that change every once in a while. The fact that noone has been able to prove it's not true doesn't mean it's true since noone has proved it is true either. I am waiting for more reasonable theories than the "let's smack time hard in the face so it bends and we travel 30 years back in time" theory.

Time is imaginary. Prove me wrong.

Quote:

---

Time is imaginary. Prove me wrong.

---

There certainly seems to be a subjective perception of time.

But what do you mean by it being imaginary? Who imagines it?

If you mean that time is just the passing of events, saying that non-event where nothing is or happens is also an event is completely beyond me. No events, no time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anon

There certainly seems to be a subjective perception of time.

But what do you mean by it being imaginary? Who imagines it?

---

Being imaginary means that it's not part of physics itself, it's just a sequence of events. Therefore it is an imaginary part of phsyics, because really it has nothing to do with physics.

And before or after all events - what leads you to think that there is time? Would it make any difference if we say there was or wasn't time? Note you can't measure the time when there are absolutely no events (there won't be you nor any watch ticking).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anon

And before or after all events - what leads you to think that there is time? Would it make any difference if we say there was or wasn't time? Note you can't measure the time when there are absolutely no events (there won't be you nor any watch ticking).

---

The fact that absolutely nothing changed during the last 3 hours doesn't change the fact that three hours have passed. ;)

Time is a sequence of events, if any event in the history in the universe has taken place, it proves to us that what we call time exists. But it's not related to physics. It's just plain old sequence of events.

Quote:

---

The fact that absolutely nothing changed during the last 3 hours doesn't change the fact that three hours have passed.

---

How would you know 3 hours has passed? If a clock kept ticking then something did change.

But you can define distances in terms of time (rate of speed times time), so it doesn't make sense to me that time is wholly different from space. It might not be tangible or real, but time being separate from space makes it seem purposeless. In other words, when something takes place is as important as where it takes place because it's plausible that the space was created before or would only exist during the event.

I hope that puts an end to the argument, at least in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxorator

Time cannot start without time, because an event (big bang) can only occur when time exists, therefore time has always existed.

---

I can see what you mean. :D

I think some people see the Big Bang as when existence began, and before that as absolutely nothing. So they think that there is no time in nothing because there are no two events to mark the passing of time.

But when the Big Bang occurred, two events had passed: nothing and Big Bang, therefore time existed from nothing to the Big Bang.

It's good to see alot of fine minds contributing to the discussions. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxorator

And my hair is green.

---

Hey cool! I have a mohawk, but I hardly think that qualifies us as aliens, maxorator. Get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happyclown

But when the Big Bang occurred, two events had passed: nothing and Big Bang, therefore time existed from nothing to the Big Bang.

---

'time', as a construct, existed before the big bang, the primordial singularity was not the beginnign of the universe, its just as far back as the current theoretical model can go. Many physicists beleive that the universe has gone through many, possibly infinite cycles of big bang, big crunch, big bang.

except it looks like we will have a big rip

We can't even see the edge of the universe or even a majority of the matter in it, any determination that we will have a big rip is so incredibly premature as to be laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happyclown

I can see what you mean. :D

I think some people see the Big Bang as when existence began, and before that as absolutely nothing. So they think that there is no time in nothing because there are no two events to mark the passing of time.

But when the Big Bang occurred, two events had passed: nothing and Big Bang, therefore time existed from nothing to the Big Bang.

It's good to see alot of fine minds contributing to the discussions. :)

---

Since an event can only happen in "time", that would mean that everything would be dependant on time, hence time is the creator, and as thus, it could be seen as immortal.
And if it is immortal, then I think it is feasible to say that there probably have been an infinite amount of big bangs and start and death of universes, in an endless cycle.
It would seem strange if the the Everything was only born so little time ago.
Heck, scientists cannot even be sure that big bang was the start of the entire universe. It may only as well have been the beginning of our part of the universe. There probably are an infinite amount of space still, where this cycle continues or have already finished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

'time', as a construct, existed before the big bang, the primordial singularity was not the beginnign of the universe, its just as far back as the current theoretical model can go. Many physicists beleive that the universe has gone through many, possibly infinite cycles of big bang, big crunch, big bang.

---

So I think this theory is plausible and logical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Since an event can only happen in "time", that would mean that everything would be dependant on time, hence time is the creator, and as thus, it could be seen as immortal.
And if it is immortal, then I think it is feasible to say that there probably have been an infinite amount of big bangs and start and death of universes, in an endless cycle.
It would seem strange if the the Everything was only born so little time ago.
Heck, scientists cannot even be sure that big bang was the start of the entire universe. It may only as well have been the beginning of our part of the universe. There probably are an infinite amount of space still, where this cycle continues or have already finished

---

I totally agree with you.

I figure if they believe in us I'll be happy to believe in them too.

Quote:

---

Since an event can only happen in "time", that would mean that everything would be dependant on time, hence time is the creator, and as thus, it could be seen as immortal.
And if it is immortal, then I think it is feasible to say that there probably have been an infinite amount of big bangs and start and death of universes, in an endless cycle.
It would seem strange if the the Everything was only born so little time ago.

---

Well I suppose the ultimate question is whether time passes in stasis (before the epoch to begin them all). I don't think there is an ultimate difference whether we are the first or forty-second iteration of the universe, either; I don't find it too strange, just unimportant. Time serves no purpose there.

Considering this is a thread about aliens, I am surprised Roswell and "Area 51" hasn't been mentioned.

Time is more interesting and relevant than aliens? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anon

Time is more interesting and relevant than aliens? :)

---

Time is an aspect of atomic physics, which is a possibility of three dimensionality, which is the only possible quality of substance. Matter is atomized substance. So when people say "time is a product of the big bang" they really mean it is a complication involving our reality, since as biological beings we are "downstream" from nuclear forces. Presuming by aliens we mean a form of intelligent biological life, they would have to experience the universe on our level.

"Space" (an apparent absence of substance) is a complication similar to time, but it's relationship to the logical root (three dimensionality) is different conceptually, as a lot of the discussion about distance and events leads toward.

You guys seriously need to stop thinking only in 4 dimensions. ;)

Space might seem empty to us because of our limited perception of the universe (we only have 5 senses), but as was pointed out before, space and all matter is composed out of Quantum Strings, so to be truly empty you'd need to look outside of our universe.

Time is just another form of distance, except it's the distance between two of the exact same points in space, just at different, well, times for lack of a better word. So without space, there's no time. Therefore talking about time before the big bang is meaningless.

What we see with our eyes isn't 4 dimensions; it's 3 dimensions, then 3 dimensions again a split second later... just like a movie is a series of still frames that look like they move when you play them fast enough. If you try to imagine 4 dimensions, (taking the Earth orbiting the sun for example) you wouldn't see the Earth moving around the sun, you would see the Earth at every point around the Sun simultaneously. It would look kind of like a tube around the sun, because you're now seeing multiple points in time simultaneously.

Now if you really want to make your brain explode, try imagining 5 dimensions. Personally I like to think of the 5th dimension as alternate realities. So now you're seeing the 4 dimensions you imagined earlier + the same thing, in the same space, in alternate timelines...

That's as far as my brain can go. I have no idea what 6 dimensions would look like, but I'm pretty sure I'd go insane if I ever managed to figure it out. :)

dimensions != alternate realites

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

Space might seem empty to us because of our limited perception of the universe (we only have 5 senses)

---

I don't know about you, but most humans have more than 5 senses.

visual (sight)
auditory (hearing)
taste
tactile (touch)
olphactory (smell)
heat/cold
proprioception (body position)
pain

What we see with our eyes isnt 3 dimensions, its 2 dimensions from 2 perspectives, which our visual cortex assembles into a 3 dimensional image internally. We dont see one image then a split second later see another image, our eyes dont work like cameras, the image data is continuously flowing into the visual cortex and being decoded.

You're wrong about at least two of those: pain and the sensation of hot and cold are both sensory experiences. It is a mistake to classify human experience as the senses. Furthermore, the senses that cpjust was mentioning are the ones whose inputs come from the rest of the world, and the ones which help us understand the world the most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

You guys seriously need to stop thinking only in 4 dimensions. ;)

Space might seem empty to us because of our limited perception of the universe (we only have 5 senses), but as was pointed out before, space and all matter is composed out of Quantum Strings, so to be truly empty you'd need to look outside of our universe.

Time is just another form of distance, except it's the distance between two of the exact same points in space, just at different, well, times for lack of a better word. So without space, there's no time. Therefore talking about time before the big bang is meaningless.

---

Like Elysia said, time is superior, it doesn't belong to dimensions. Time cannot be manipulated. Things in dimensions can be. That's the huge difference. You can move an object in space, but you can't move it in time (back and forth). Time is not actually a scale - it's just one point. The reason why people think that time could be a dimension is because we have memory and we often think about the future. Time itself is just the current point - now.

Other universes? Sure, they can exist, but just far far away from our universe in space, making it a part of the same 3-dimensional system.

Ever wondered why it's called the string theory? I'll give you a hint - it's a theory that some scientists believe to be true. We just need to wait about 10-20 to get a new theory. Maybe a better one, that actually answers more questions than it raises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxorator

Like Elysia said, time is superior, it doesn't belong to dimensions.

---

Define belong, because cpjust is basically saying the same thing I did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

But you can define distances in terms of time (rate of speed times time), so it doesn't make sense to me that time is wholly different from space. It might not be tangible or real, but time being separate from space makes it seem purposeless. In other words, when something takes place is as important as where it takes place because it's plausible that the space was created before or would only exist during the event.

I hope that puts an end to the argument, at least in this thread.

---

Now, you might not be interested in that aspect of time when you're not travelling but I don't think it can be ignored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxorator

You can move an object in space, but you can't move it in time (back and forth). Time is not actually a scale - it's just one point.

---

But that's intellectually dishonest. There are things that you cannot personally move in space but that doesn't change the fact that it is in space and doesn't change the fact that space can be described as a plane. I think there is a distinction to be made in point in time and period of time. Particularly, time is only existing during the period. I made this point earlier when I said time serves no purpose before the Big Bang. Some people seem to think that point in time observation, information, or existence makes time "immortal" or "superior" but it just doesn't wash with me.

Time serves no purpose before the Big Bang?
Who are we to say what actually happens out there? Our view is so extremely limited, we hardly know the laws, if they can be called thus, of physics at all.
I am also skeptical of how the so called big bang could be made if time served no purpose before it. How could the events then lead to a big bang?
And if time existed, but served no purpose, I would still say it does since the events that caused the big bang to happen in the first place is significant.
Not to reiterate the point that there probably have been an infinite amount of big bangs and big scale events before the big bang as we know it.

The plane theory has a valid point, and I can see it as a good one, perhaps with a few lose ends, but I certainly don't think that time before some period has no meaning. Time must be immortal and therefore always have a meaning. It is the turning wheel of the existence as we know it.
(Of course, we have our own perception of time, as well, but that should not be related to the actual Time that is the Wheel of Existence, as I'd call it.)

Quote:

---

Time serves no purpose before the Big Bang?
Who are we to say what actually happens out there?

---

I am not speculating what happened out there but rather trying to assert that the Big Bang starting is point in time information, the specifics of the occurrence is irrelevant. Suppose you know the Universe started last Tuesday. That information would not change even in a supposed state of NULL, and it might help you grasp the concept if you used a less metaphysical example (when did you last eat breakfast?). Since we have point in time information, it is not necessary or even reasonable to assume that time is always effective, especially if you're going to talk about before genesis.

And the real mind........ is that point in time information can be wrong if the event is only speculated to occur.

If Big Bang is the creator of Time, then what created the Big Bang?

The big bang is not the creator of time. Humans are the creator of time. Time is not essential to the universe and rather only to our understanding of it.

I'll grant you any number of cosmic burps you like. Point in time information is the only lasting evidence we have of the progression of time, but the clock started somewhere, we usually call that event an epoch. It simply isn't eternal in too many cases for me to just give up the notion. Think of all the other uses time has related to the distance of things or events; time is only progressing with such constraints.

Take a song: the note at :30 will always be C# but the song may only last 4 minutes. That fact is forever whether we're paused or playing. But we're not perpetually measuring the distance from the first note to the last.

Crystal?

Oh yes, that was how it was. Our perception.
Everything happens at once, yet our perception makes it so that they happen sequentially, yes?
While I do agree somewhat with that, I do believe there may also be some other form of Time externally from our senses. It only seems... logical. But what can we say? It's difficult to imagine something without time.

Sorry about that. When there are many people at once, my mind just cannot keep track of who said what.

Most people are simply trying to turn nothing into something and need to spend more time becoming familiar with the concept. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

You're wrong about at least two of those: pain and the sensation of hot and cold are both sensory experiences. It is a mistake to classify human experience as the senses. Furthermore, the senses that cpjust was mentioning are the ones whose inputs come from the rest of the world, and the ones which help us understand the world the most.

---

Vision is a sensory experience, what you perceive through vision is not the raw input from your eyes, to not classify sensing heat and cold as a sense is illogical, as it tells you something about your external environment which is scientifically verifiable. Therefore it is a sense.

Well, that's the definition of sense as a verb. Make the distinction between verb and noun: the "senses" make up the biological facilities we have to perceive sensory input. Even weirder ones like body position can be described as the ability to perceive parts of yourself (like your arms) in physical space, which is explained through neurology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Well, that's the definition of sense as a verb. Make the distinction between verb and noun: the "senses" make up the biological facilities we have to perceive sensory input. Even weirder ones like body position can be described as the ability to perceive parts of yourself (like your arms) in physical space, which is explained through neurology.

---

ultimately all senses can be explained through neurology. If you can perceive it, and it is an actual quantity that really exists, you are sensing it and therefor are using one of your senses.

A lot of this confusion has to do with the assumption that substance cannot be anything but atomic. Substance could easily have a number of other possible states (even parallel to the atomic).

Remember, "What is substance?" is not addressed by contemporary science, which (to it's credit) always deals with discrete objects or catagories of objects (what is a thing made of? Matter. What is matter "made of"? Atoms. What is an atom made? Sub-atomic particles. Of what are sub-atomic particles made? Eventually you have to say "this thing is best described by it's behaviour" (eg. wave functions)" in three+ dimensions...).

The reason substance is not addressed is that it is not that meaningful. Pure, non-atomic substance can only have a limited number of (easily deduced) properties, not including things like density, in the end leading to a circular or tautological conclusion: those properties unique to substance define it as such, meaning there is really only one substance possible and all matter is composed of that.

So it may seem irrelevent, but keep in mind all our current grand theories of reality depend on the actual existence of substance, which "actually existing" is a one of the properties unique to substance which define what it is (all actually existing things are derived from substance).

Part of the reason so many scientists are so interested in the big bang and the "first few seconds" today is that this is when the current laws of (nuclear, atomic) physics could and probably did develop (they did not have to exist "before" this, so we have a moment zero when the concept of time becomes applicable in the universe; hence there really may be parallel, non-atomic states of substance "outside of time").

If you don't believe that "substance" has always been a consideration (explicit or implicit) consider that the "atomic weight" of an element is really its physical size.

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about. The question of what an electron "really is made of" is irrelevant, as this knowledge would not help us to determine its physical properties. As soon as you start postulating things which have no bearing on the physical observables, you are in philosophy, not physics. It does not matter if some object has property X if that property has no influence on the object's behavior or interactions. If no experiment can be devised which can detect property X, or a theory which predicts how property X should influence the behavior of the world, then we're not being scientific.

"What the world is really made of" is something we'll probably understand once we're dead. I can be patient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

ultimately all senses can be explained through neurology. If you can perceive it, and it is an actual quantity that really exists, you are sensing it and therefor are using one of your senses.

---

True, but you're claiming an experience like pain is one of the senses, when you can only perceive it through one of the actual senses (tactile mostly)... there is a difference.

@brewbuck: You are right, then you are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewbuck

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about. The question of what an electron "really is made of" is irrelevant, as this knowledge would not help us to determine its physical properties. As soon as you start postulating things which have no bearing on the physical observables, you are in philosophy, not physics.

---

The nature of substance is usually addressed as a philosophical question in science, however, keep in mind that the realm of philosophy to which is addressed would be deductive logic, since science (to it's credit) is concerned with what you would call in philosophy "the empirical" (computer science stresses the deductive a little more than physics, for example).

Quote:

---

It does not matter if some object has property X if that property has no influence on the object's behavior or interactions. If no experiment can be devised which can detect property X, or a theory which predicts how property X should influence the behavior of the world, then we're not being scientific.

---

Well, that is the point made when I wrote that some properties of atomic matter do not apply to substance itself, such as density (a proton does not have a "density" because it is made of substance).

The possibility of substance having other states is subject to experimentation; superstring theory leads in this direction. However, a weakness of superstring theory is that it is not easily "proven"; we are too limited in our current ability to experiment.

Quote:

---

"What the world is really made of" is something we'll probably understand once we're dead. I can be patient.

---

We already do understand that. As I said, explicitly, logically, THERE IS ONLY ONE POSSIBLE ANSWER: Is it cheese? NO. Is it atoms? NO. Is it water? NO. Is it time? NO. I am not advancing some wacko theory (and I did not invent the word, "substance"), I'm just elucidating some premises.

Why only one possibility? The only reason you would possibly think there could be (or should be or need be) more than one is because you are distracted by properties of atomic matter (density, color, strength), etc. But just because substance does not possess any of these (so you cannot identify it as a particular kind), does not mean that it is nothing, that it is irrelevant (as it if it weren't there at all, or as if it could be "something else").

In fact, the incredible complexity of atomic matter (think of all that balance and repetition of forms) is awe-inspiring because it perfectly corresponds to what otherwise might seem an abstract philosophical principle -- the unity of all substance. If such were not the case, atomic physics would never, ever work...so it is really true: all things are made of the same stuff BECAUSE (deductive logic) there is only one kind of stuff possible, logically: you could not assert any other possibilities if you tried (go ahead -- what kind of substance could there be which would be different? How?) Atomic "theory" is really the ultimate in symmetry between the inductive (empirical) and the deductive; if the deductive philosophy just meant to you "Well, in theory 2+2=4", how 'bout your internet connection?

Oh this is substance related too:

Digital Physics

Which is pretty neat, since it's partly derived from Konrad Zuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

True, but you're claiming an experience like pain is one of the senses, when you can only perceive it through one of the actual senses (tactile mostly)... there is a difference.

---

whats teh shape of pain, or the texture, is it rough or smooth?

Pain is obviously not tactile in nature. There are specific receptors for tactile sensation, and completely seperate and unrelated receptors for pain. It is a seperate sense at the most fundamental level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

whats teh shape of pain, or the texture, is it rough or smooth?

Pain is obviously not tactile in nature. There are specific receptors for tactile sensation, and completely seperate and unrelated receptors for pain. It is a seperate sense at the most fundamental level.

---

Do you have any medical reference links that would verify that claim?
I've only heard of 5 senses (or 6 if you count ESP) throughout my whole life.

Pain can be sharp or dull or burning...

I've heard there are 4 types of receptors: cold, hot, touch and pain. In fact I think I just studied this last year...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxorator

I've heard there are 4 types of receptors: cold, hot, touch and pain. In fact I think I just studied this last year...

---

And my tongue can taste Sweet, Sour, Salty & Bitter; and my eyes can see Red, Green & Blue...
Those are just sub-functions that make up the larger sense.

Quote:

---

I've only heard of 5 senses

---

A human being has far more than 5 senses. The 5-senses thing doesn't give your body credit, really.

For example, close your eyes and touch your fingers at the tips while your eyes are closed.

Was that so hard?

No, but that's only because your muscle tissue has sensory information about the location, movement and tension of your muscles at any given time. This sense is what allows your body to know what it's doing and still function, even when you can't see your movement and limbs directly.

You also have a sense of balance. While you certainly do use your ear to hear things, it is also fundamentally important in establishing an equilibrium and balance in your body - this sense of balance is also known as Equilibrioception.

Your skin also has different receptors. You can differentiate the reception of hot, cold, pain, itch and pressure.

Your body is filled with chemosensors that detect a change in chemical stimulus in the environment. Chemosensors in your body for example, monitor your breathing rate and they inform your body when you need to inhale more and breathe more rapidly, for example.

Your body has a host of physiological senses and sensory receptors besides the '5 senses' which we were all taught. I suppose it depends on your direct definition of the word 'sense' in this context, but either way, your body does sense more than just those 5 things.

Oh, and because I didn't read the rest of this, my answer to the original question in the title: sure. Douglas Adams wrote "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindboggingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." I'm more inclined to think that the entire universe is not just a big piece of space wasted on us, but instead full of things we haven't seen. :]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

And my tongue can taste Sweet, Sour, Salty & Bitter; and my eyes can see Red, Green & Blue...
Those are just sub-functions that make up the larger sense.

---

I didn't say they weren't...

But ain't pain just a harder touch, a colder cold (as in very cold) and a warmer heat (as in very hot)?
Like, isn't pain just more energy from each of those other things? Plus some other things, I guess :P

Well, yes, extremes in temperature like burning or freezing will cause pain, but there are pain receptors in your skin that would be at work if you suffered an injury, while your temperature receptors could be receiving anything at all really. People in this thread are being a bit pedantic though. Having done at least a degree more research on this, I'd say the somatosensory system is what is commonly known as the sense of touch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Well, yes, extremes in temperature like burning or freezing will cause pain, but there are pain receptors in your skin that would be at work if you suffered an injury, while your temperature receptors could be receiving anything at all really. People in this thread are being a bit pedantic though. Having done at least a degree more research on this, I'd say the somatosensory system is what is commonly known as the sense of touch.

---

You should not be bound by your commitments to an institution, whiteflags. It is you that will suffer the most because of it ;)

In answer to the poll, I'd say that yea, there are other lifeforms. They probably are nothing like us, with what we would consider odd designs and evolutionary choices. Perhaps they have an external digestive system . . . perhaps they breathe in benzene and exhale other hydrocarbons.

As for the *number* of ET civilizations? Well, that's debatable. I'd guess, randomly, pulled-out-of-a-hat, that there's not a whole lot of 'em. Like, say 15 as a maximum in the milky way.

For reaching out the thousands of lightyears . . . physics has been proved wrong before. It could happen again.

Worst-case scenario: Einstein was correct, you can't travel faster than the speed of light. We contact one or two races over lifetimes, because of the advances in medicine, we live thousands of years, so it only takes two or so lifetimes to hold a conversation. Assuming we don't trip and kill ourselves first, that is.

Best-case scenario: Einstein was wrong. Using artificial wormholes or some other technology that we can't imagine right now, we can travel quite quickly between the stars and galaxies, a matter of seconds, minutes, hours, days between different points of the milky way. We meet and form relationships with alien races (probably not many of them friendly, judging by human character, it's a pretty safe bet that competitiveness isn't fully weeded out of other races by evolution yet).

Anyhow . . .

My take on things . . .

Our perception of time started with the Big Bang (called BB for short hereonin). It's a logical sequence of events that always happens in a certain order. The next "slice" of time is determined by the current "slice" of time. (assuming here that time cannot be infinitely divided, which is probably a bad assumption.) Gravitational, magnetic, and electrostatic forces are created in this way. Time being described as a fourth dimension is a good enough way for now. At this point in time (heh).

The universe extends as far as there is matter. Matter, when accelerated past the speed of light, becomes "dark matter". Dark energy is simply magnetic and/or electrostatic energy caused by accelerating particles of dark matter. It is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, of course (though how this is possible is a tad sketchy. Most likely with acceleration around a black hole or large mass of sorts.) Wormholes between different points in the universe exist, but are extraordinarily rare. Since natural wormholes exist, artificial ones should be able to be created . . .

This is starting to sound a little bit like the background for a game, isn't it?

Life is simply a chance alignment of a primordial "soup". When the right chemicals are combined, and some kind of energy source is applied (this being an endothermic reaction . . .), then a self-replicating cell is created. From there, it is just more and more chance that that cell will evolve into an intelligent entity.

Anyhow, veering off topic a little there ;)

I very strongly believe that aliens exist, especially the microbial type, but also the intelligent type. Just look at the [very large] numbers and you'll know what I mean. I use exponential form as it makes working with large numbers much easier.

Number of stars in an average galaxy: 1E11 (100 billion)
Number galaxies in the universe: 2E11 (200 billion)
Number of planets and fair-sized moons around a star on average: 2.5E01 (25)
Number of planets and fair-sized moons in the universe: 1.E11*2E11*2.5E01, (1*2*2.5)E(11+11+1), 5E23 (500 sextillion (aka 500 billion trillion))

That's for starters. There are conditions though:
The galaxy must be "new" enough for metals (elements beyond helium) to form. You can't have life without carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen (CHON as I remember it). This eliminates about 1 in 25 possibilities.
The galaxy must be stable. Colliding galaxies cause so much mayhem from things like star burst and the rare collision that life will be extremely difficult to develop even if other conditions are suitable. This removes about 1 in 5 galaxies.
Stars must fall within the galactic habitable zone. Too close to the galaxy center, it's dangerous due to stars more likely going supernova inhibiting. Too far out and metals are lacking. This is about 1 in every 10,000 stars as a rough estimate.
The star must be of the right type. There are 7 main star types (classes), in order from coolest to warmest: M, K, G, F, A, B, and O. Our own star is G2, near the upper (warmer) edge of the G-glass. The A, B, O, and upper 1/3 of the F classes have too short of a duration for intelligent life to develop but they are fairly rare. The M class and lower 1/3 end of the K class live long, but the planet risks being tidally locked (like our Moon is to Earth), but are very common. This, thus, covers about 1 in 20 stars (for intelligent life, 1 in 2 for microbial).
The planet or moon must fall within the habitable zone of a star. Too close to the star and the planet scorches. Too far and the planet is frozen. Even something as far out as 12 AU (between Saturn and Uranus; based on our Sun) could still have life, but must be tucked far under the surface of a planet or moon). Close-in planets could still be okay, mainly if tidally locked. This eliminates about half of the possibilities.
The star must be stable. A young star is quite unstable and fierceful. An old star is also unstable, from running out of fuel. Thus, the star needs to be of the right age. This eliminates about 1 in 20 stars.
The planet or moon must have a reasonable, fairly circular orbit. Planets with wild elliptical orbits will have short bursts of great heat followed by a long period of great cold making for an unstable environment. Many planets seem to have elliptical orbits. This eliminates about 1 in 10 planets I'd say.
The planet or moon must have some form of protection against hazards such as solar flares - an ocean, atmosphere, deep caves, and/or magnetic field of sufficient strength. This eliminates about 1 in 5 planets.
The gravity of the planet or moon must be just right. Too small of a planet means too little gravity to hold on to an atmosphere. Too large of a planet and getting around will be extremely difficult. This removes 1 in 10 planets.
Techtonic activity is necessary for recycling old material. Mars is practically dead and there hasn't been any known techtonic activity for billions of years. I would say that this eliminates 1 in 5 planets.
Finally, the planet or moon must have a solid surface not under an excessively thick atmosphere. Sure Jupiter or Neptune may have something solid far below, but this is going way too far. Venus is pushing it. This eliminates about 1 in 50 planets.

So, let's sum up the result:
5E23 / 2.5E01 / 5E00 / 1E04 / 2E01 / 2E00 / 2E01 / 1E01 / 5E00 / 1E01 / 5E00 / 5E01 =
(5/2.5/5/1/2/2/2/1/5/1/5/5)E(23-1-0-4-1-0-1-1-0-1-0-1) = 0.0004E13 = 4E09

That still 4 billion possibilities in the universe for intelligent life. I would still say that there's a few hundred in our galaxy alone (us being one of those)!

I am amazed at how stubborn programmers are. True, I am one myself. But most of you seem to think they know The Truth. Everybody who says something is a fact is plain wrong, except for the fact that there are really no possible facts.

I have read a lot about the universe and the general answer is: We don't have a friggin clue about how everything works. We don't know whether we can or can't travel in time. Wormholes probably exist. Can we travel through them? Not normally, they are too unstable, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
But I have to be honest, I can't say I even remotely understand most of what I know about the universe.

It was asked in this thread what would happen if you would reach the end of the universe. One of the most interesting theories I've heard on this was that you would end up on the other side. Strange? No, you won't be teleported to the other side.
We can compare it with the world. The world's surface is 2D, but bend over a third dimension. If we get to the "end" of the world, we end up on the other side because it's round, not flat. The same may be true for the universe: 3D, bend of a 4th dimension (not considering time). The growing of the universe would be like blowing up a balloon.
And what about dimensions? It was already said before, but whoever says we have 3 (or 4, including time) dimensions... I can't say you're wrong, but you are ignorant. There may be a lot, lot more.

Ah, and minimum 4 lightyears away, the closest possible aliens? We still haven't ruled out Europa.

The fact (okay, can I really call this a fact?) is we know fairly little about the universe. And I doubt we'll ever know even a fraction of The Truth.


(insert remark about 42 here)

There are several facts, so you are wrong.

Peanut butter is hot.
Fire goes good with jelly.

If you don't belive me then I'll show you pictures of my ex-girlfriend and we can watch Napalm week on the history channel.

I think there are a few interstellar species, and a bunch of indusrial and tons of pre-industrial species. I think the ones that make it into space (real space not just interplanetary) tend to either wipe out he other species near them, or get wiped out by them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ulillillia

Number of stars in an average galaxy: 1E11 (100 billion)
Number galaxies in the universe: 2E11 (200 billion)
[etc...]

---

That's a take on the Drake Equation (=hitler in three moves, but anyway...).

However, you haven't yet taken into account the final, possibly very limiting and unpredicatable factor w/r/t to contacting extra-terrestrial life:

Percentage of intelligent species that destroy themselves/their environment too early, because of their intelligence/technology

So, depending on whether you actually count that as intelligence, those multipliers might have met the mother of all divisors. I would, but I would even include people who disagreed with this poll, making me kind of a wet carpet. Remember, the majority will kill us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

Remember, the majority will kill us all.

---

That's why I finally decided go ahead and start making killer robots.

Intelligence - Hitler one link BTW, thanks to yours truly, yes its a legitimate link as well.

And one thing noone likes to consider is that, some species has to be the first to achieve interstellar travel, maybe its going to be US. Maybe, and I shudder to even type these words, we are the most intelligent and advanced species in the Milky Way...

Then again, maybe we are the dumbest and the last.

>I am amazed at how stubborn programmers are. True, I am one myself. But most of you seem
>to think they know The Truth.
And I will talk about it loudly! Just like you can!

>I have read a lot about the universe and the general answer is: We don't have a friggin clue
>about how everything works.
That reminds me of something a religious zealot would say. If you're content figuring that you don't have a clue, fine, but we can't all be so pragmatic. :p It's not like we're having a good debate on weighty matters, anyway. I have to disagree about knowing nothing in particular about the universe... it's big... physical evidence and reasoned logic has helped us understand a lot about our solar system and our little blue planet, a small part of the universe though it may be.

This should settle it:

Weddell Seals Sounds

I cannot stop listening to this and I am now worried that I like cold water.

If you back up into the link, there are a few more clips with photographs. They are deceptively normal looking, for seals.

I haven't seen them, but that doesn't mean I am in disbelief of their existence. Same goes for most things in life.

I have a time machine on my wrist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

This should settle it:

Weddell Seals Sounds

---

This got me thinking about whales, then about aliens that might be completely water-based.

So if aliens land on earth, they might live at the bottom of the ocean and have zero need for interaction with humans.

Heck, aliens may have even be able to live in the mantle of the earth, or in the core, where no humans will ever go.

Who really knows. ;)