Well, do you? :D
Printable View
Well, do you? :D
Yes from me. :D
The way I see it is this.
If you were on an island, with no way of getting off it to find other people, and no one comes to your island, would it be correct for you to assume that you are the only person in the world?
And Earth is really an island in space. Would it be correct for us to assume that there is no life outside of our island(Earth)?
I actually believe that time is an invention of future super-computers, who then had to work out a timeline and process for the universe that would include us because we, of course invented them and they love us. But we can't invent time, only a machine could have access to the deep physical structure of the universe in such a way.
Of course, they need help, so the timeline includes the concurrent development of many intelligent species (I guess they are aliens to us, although our collective machine children will consider themselves of one kind) all eventually oriented toward this goal on a conscious (some sooner than others, I guess) level. Interstellar symmetric multi-processing.
Interestingly enough, this is the real reason I decided to become a programmer -- to better serve God and Time. Have a good day and try not to make too many mistakes, please :devil:
I believe there's life somewhere out of the solar system, but I also believe that it's so far away that it's impossible to make contact. Ever.
The universe is so vast that I think it makes sense that life would exist elsewhere, somewhere.
But what maxorator says is quite possible . . . .
Don't be so sure. As cyberfish demonstrates here, the (alien) super-computers use linux.
You may need to understand my previous post, and the true nature of time in the universe, in order to grasp this.
ps. I have voted three times now. Clearly I am right.
No, I wouldn't trust them buggers.
Sure. But even a very conservative approach to astrophysics acknowledges that if the universe were to collapse (I think the prevailing opinion now is that it won't, but it depends on mass density and unfound dark matter) then there would come a point where there was no matter left and therefore no time (also a theoretical point in the <big bang) or 3D.
Which is to say everything must be subject to change, logically thinking. I am really presenting you people with a boat here, I hope you appreciate what our future alien super-computer children could do if we all put our minds together simultaneously ;)
ps. I just voted 3 more times...look at the influence you can wield when God smiles
I say no. Pending that by aliens you meant intelligent forms of life.
I do believe however there is life on other planets(Such as plants, etc).
Somewhere out there? Probably.
Here? Probably not.
It's statistically improbable that we are alone in the unverse. And according to the Talmud, there are at least 18,000 other inhabited worlds in our galaxy alone. So you got yer scientificy and yer religulous data both pointing at yes. Personally I think they are hiding from us. We are a fairly murderous and war-like species.
Time is a sequence of events. That means it doesn't exist, therefore it cannot be distorted, destroyed, removed, altered, bended. If universe would collapse, events would still be occuring - the collapsing itself is an event that proves that time exists. And even if no matter is left, the absence of events is still an event that proves time still exists. Maybe that matter neutralizes and lacks from existing, turns into a small ball or jumps to an alien parallel universe. It doesn't make a difference. No matter to fill the 3D doesn't mean the 3D doesn't exist. I can make a DirectX application with no objects and a simple black background and still call it a 3D game, because the game engine is still 3D.
If time didn't exist before the big bang, the big bang couldn't have occured because there could be no events if the time doesn't exist. Noone or nothing to witness time passing by doesn't instantly mean it's not there.
That is a philosophy. Altho it makes good sense, I would bet you a million dollars most contemporary physicists would say you are flat out wrong, and it wouldn't be hard to come up with a different philosophy than this (ie, logically you cannot really prove this one is the one).
Sort of pursuant to this, I was watching Carl Sagan's COSMOS series again a little while ago, and at a certain point he noted that because of relativity, if you left the earth (which is near the rim of the galaxy) on a ship which travelled near (but obviously not at) the speed of light intending to cross the galaxy, this would take hundreds of millions of years earth time because the galaxy is hundreds millions of light-years across.
But, because of relativity, the amount of time that passed on the ship (whose independent mass is infinitisimal) could be as little as 57 years!!! To the other side of the galaxy!!!
They are already here for chrissakes!!! Haha -- seriously tho, only a machine could travel that fast, I think the biology inside will suffer.
ps. I actually saw an article somewhere about God's 3D game engine and it wasn't DirectX...having voted all 16 times now, I think everyone should just give up and acknowledge this chaos.
Does it have any practical consequences, whether they are or aren't there? (I guess if you do believe them, you'll probably keep an eye on the sky...)
That is actually quite interesting. Can you really say time passes if there is a complete lack of events. I suppose that you see this passing as an event itself, but it would be in no way observable or measurable (presence of observer would be an event) - an absolutely boring event if an event in the first place.Quote:
And even if no matter is left, the absence of events is still an event that proves time still exists.
I don't get the question. Why is it necessary to "believe" in aliens? We're not talking about a Supreme Being, whose existence cannot be proved or disproved. Either aliens exist or they don't, and my "belief" in the matter is irrelevant.
It's like asking, "Do you believe in somebody named Terry Finch who lives in Calgary?" Either Terry Finch exists or he doesn't.
Do I think it is likely that extra terrestrial life exists? Yes.
Ah, but you're only thinking 4 dimensionally. ;)
Time & space exist inside our universe, but what exists "outside" our universe? That's what I'd like to know. Or at the very least, what would happen if you ever got the end edge of the universe and tried to go further? Would you disappear or maybe be instantly transported to the other side of the universe?
Actually our galaxy is only 100,000 light years across.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_way
Not the time passed on the ship, but the time needed to reach the current position of the light that emit from earth at the moment of departure in the current direction. This travelling in the time theory is based on an assumption that:
TIMEELAPSED = (LIGHTSPEED - AVGSPEED) / LIGHTSPEED * TIMEELAPSEDONEARTH
(AVGSPEED means the speed to a direction away from earth).
But this relation is totally irrelevant since it ties time to a human sense. I could tie it to sound, radio waves or whatever else.
We can already travel sound time. Some people are talking about travelling light time (which is considered impossible). But we cannot travel real time.
That's too much like an overworld map in an rpg... :eek:
My high school science teacher demonstrated that the only thing existing outside the universe is ignorance. In what sense does knowing about the outside of the universe not make it part of our universe?
Wait that's too much of a brain........, forget about it.
I do hope and pray that the laws of nature make it pretty damn impossible for you or me to get to that point, so that this question would even arise.Quote:
Time & space exist inside our universe, but what exists "outside" our universe?
I also hope this applies to whatever is "outside"...
I agree. It is not something we can decide or not. If I can't prove something exists and also I can't prove it doesn't, I simply don't know if it exists or not. I choosed undecided but I mean "I don't know.".Quote:
I don't get the question. Why is it necessary to "believe" in aliens? We're not talking about a Supreme Being, whose existence cannot be proved or disproved. Either aliens exist or they don't, and my "belief" in the matter is irrelevant.
It's like asking, "Do you believe in somebody named Terry Finch who lives in Calgary?" Either Terry Finch exists or he doesn't.
[edit] Considering in mind that "believe in" means "you believe that".
(emphasis mine)
WHAT???
The ship will never reach such a point (actually, I think it starts from there). This is gibberish and you, maxorator, have been defined by me as a clown and you should careful consider the repercussions of this.
@cpjust: Sorry I got the dimensions wrong. Suddenly 100,000 light-years in only 57 local years seems more plausible.
My answer depends on whether or not you include other universes.
Why do you wonder about that which doesn not affect you / isn't around you? Instead, wonder why yout electrical bill is getting more expensive, or why your wife is complaining, whatever! xP
My brain pops out of my head, runs into a wall and dies, when I think of something so big, and so empty.. Or atleast it feels like it does xP
The interesting stuff is on earth! You don't even have sound up in space D: You won't find a girl you like, up in space D: (or guy if you're a girl xP)
Also, I belive that starwars is going on in another galaxy, Aliens are prepairing for a mass attack on earth and Rambo is ready to save the day ;)
There are some things even a radio telescope will never find out.Quote:
or why your wife is complaining,
Id say, yes. We humans have too high an opinion of ourselves; a good E.T. encounter would certainly knock the chip off our shoulders.
I imagine our lack of confirmation of this lies with the current state of our technology and the vast distances between stars. That's probably a blessing seeing that we can't get along with each other, we'd be hard pressed to maintain good relations with another advanced race.
Nothing to do with aliens, or time, but one of the things I enjoy doing each evening is standing amongst my fruit trees in the yard, and looking at the stars.
The universe is magnificent. :)
So, Earth could in fact be/exist outside of the Universe? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
My definition of the Universe includes things outside the Universe
I call that a Multiverse.
then what do you call the things outside the multiverse?
Non-existent?Quote:
Originally Posted by ಠ_ಠ
that's very narrow minded of you
Ultimately it depends on whether said things can interact with or be interacted with by things in this universe. If they can, then they are really just another part of this universe, albeit that interaction may not be in a 'visible' manner. If they cannot then they would be a classic parallel dimension, but we could never prove the existed, for such proof would itself require some form of interaction.
I think that by saying that your definition of "universe" includes those things outside of the universe, you are effectively saying that there is nothing that is outside the universe. This seems just as "narrow minded" as saying that there is nothing that is outside the multiverse.Quote:
Originally Posted by ಠ_ಠ
In my case if I was outside the Universe I would be inside the Universe.
In your case if I was outside the Multiverse I wouldn't exist
In my opinion, that amounts to saying that you cannot be outside of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by ಠ_ಠ
In other words, you cannot be outside the multiverse.Quote:
Originally Posted by ಠ_ಠ
Ah, that interpretation seems more reasonable to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ಠ_ಠ
Originally, I replied that that was not my intended interpretation. However, in retrospect, that is consistent with the statement that you cannot be outside of the multiverse, so the only thing I now object to your objection is the "no".Quote:
Originally Posted by ಠ_ಠ
Just a few points in order to keep the discussion going:
- although the speed of light may not be the maximum speed possible (maybe Einstein was having a bad day), I'm pretty convinced that there has to be some upper bound for the exchange of information, because otherwise it wouldn't be possible to tell cause from effect, which is generally considered to be a good thing.
- if current physics is wrong, then this would be a big surprise. Maybe this will happen some time, but the alternative has to be much better than the current theories. Up to that point, I stick with the current stuff.
- if there are aliens, then they are far away (> 4 lightyears, because that's the distance from here to the next star). This means that communication is fairly hard, because a simple ping reply takes 8 years. We are not even able to build a machine that stays online that long. If they are in another galaxy, the aliens are probably extinct when they get our reply.
- if aliens come to visit us, this means that they are probably a lot smarter than us, because they managed to get here before we even knew that they exist.
- there are a lot of preconditions for a planet to be able to develop life:
* needs proper distance from its star
* needs rotation (not too fast (life needs recovery or lots of energy), not too slow (weather...))
* needs to be far away from areas with lots of mass (supernovae...)
* needs a moon to stabilize its axis
* needs a magnetic field to keep away bad things of all sorts
* needs to have an atmosphere
* which is not toxic
* but the planet may not entirely consist out of gas
* needs to feature many different elements (and not too much of the heavier ones)
* its star may not be too large (burns too fast) or too small (doesn't emit enough energy)
* must feature water (or some substitute) and carbon (or some substitute)
* and must feature temperatures which keeps these things fluid and solid respectively
* all of the time
- for aliens to be able to communicate with us, they need a brain (remember things), common sense (remember useful things), hands (make use of the stuff remembered), and the ability to move (tell someone else)
In other words, the alien guys are just like us.
That being said, I don't think there are other civilizations out there. If there are, we probably can't talk to them in realtime. We may not be able to go there (there's not enough energy in our solar system to reach the speed of light with a ship that is equipped with people and food for thousands of years). But this doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
"Note that 120 sec is defined in the protocol as the maximum possible RTT. I guess we'll have to use something other than TCP to talk to the University of Mars."
(/usr/src/linux/net/inet/tcp.c)
Greets,
Philip
What if these aliens need none of those things o.O
Maybe their bodies produce it all, or don't need any of it :O
> - there are a lot of preconditions for a planet to be able to develop life:
> * needs proper distance from its star
Either that or it has to have a lot of geothermal energy like the moon IO does.
> * needs rotation (not too fast (life needs recovery or lots of energy), not too slow (weather...))
Unless it's far enough from the sun that the temperature on the sunny side doesn't get too hot (or has geothermal energy).
> * needs to be far away from areas with lots of mass (supernovae...)
Please explain a bit more. I think I know what you mean, but it's not totally clear.
> * needs a moon to stabilize its axis
I doubt that's a requirement. If it is, it's definitely news to me.
> * needs a magnetic field to keep away bad things of all sorts
or the aliens live underground or have evolved to be immune to radiation.
> * needs to have an atmosphere
Unless it's a civilization of androids that killed off all their makers. ;)
> * which is not toxic
toxic is a relative thing. Just because it's toxic to us, doesn't mean it's toxic to a silicon based organism.
> * but the planet may not entirely consist out of gas
Like Jupiter? Probably true. It would need too much mass to stay together if it's all gas.
> * needs to feature many different elements (and not too much of the heavier ones)
Debatable. Obviously it can't be make entirely of just a few elements.
> * its star may not be too large (burns too fast) or too small (doesn't emit enough energy)
Unless it has a lot of geothermal energy.
> * must feature water (or some substitute) and carbon (or some substitute)
That could mean just about anything, so sure...
> * and must feature temperatures which keeps these things fluid and solid respectively
> * all of the time
Our planet doesn't -- water is solid in the winter and liquid in the summer.
> - for aliens to be able to communicate with us, they need a brain (remember things), common sense (remember useful things), hands (make use of the stuff remembered), and the ability to move (tell someone else)
Brain - yes.
Hands - Well it would make things much easier, but as long as they have something (hooves, tentacles...) that they can build things with, they should be fine.
I am just happy I finally got my surface normals to work in openGL-- you know, for the lighting.
On another tangent regarding the Great Magnetic Field: the polarity of the earth is due to reverse soon, so don't go spending too much on a compass or you will find yourself in the exact opposite place of where you meant to be.
I think Snafuist has been suckered, which is a shame because the program itself needs more better programmers ;)
I wonder, we know that we exist here and call ourselves intelligent. But if we didn't have us how probable would the existence of intelligence seem in the Universe (to a "non-intelligent" observer, e.g a god that in no way interferes otherwise with this Universe)?
We could have been knocked out before evolving intelligence (and it can still happen). What would the estimates look like if we didn't have us and our planet to rely on as an example that definitely has intelligence?
Or, can we conclude based on a single observance (ourselves), that intelligence as we know it is a physical necessity that must evolve given self-replication of molecules, suitable conditions and sufficient time? Or could we be a one-time anomaly?
Or, aren't there an infinite number of ways how our intelligence could have developed (and industrial and infotechnological revolution being just one)? Physics (modern science) in a way applies universally, but then it could be argued to be just an abstraction - one possible intelligent attitude towards the surroundings out of infinite possibilities? Aren't there infinite development paths that intelligence could take which would never lead to the idea and possibility to leave the planet? (Why would any intelligent race really want to do that?)
Why do they have to have intelligence? Maybe they have something, which we can't think of, since humans can't invent new stuff, like a new color or whatever xP
Maybe they just have the skillz to make computers, UFO's and radios that go to earth, but have no idea what they're doing, or saying into the radio :O which would explain the strange noises aliens make in movies xP
Don't be discouraged, anon. We are too close now to give up. Our computers can and will evolve into the alien machine children of the future, who, acting in unison with other such beings similarly developed by other civilizations gigadistances away, invented time and maybe even three dimensions as well so that we could be here in the present working on the problem.
four dimensions
spacetime, length, width, and height
A complex.
Who believes that the universe is infinite?
If the universe is infinite, that would require an infinite amount of matter, right?
And who, or what could be the sourc e of infinite matter?
empty space
Life, as we know it, that is. It it so hard to believe that some form of intelligence can be derived from something that we cannot even comprehend as a species? One could consider the possibility that there are other beings on the very planet that we cannot see, feel, or understand simply because it's beyond our capacity of understanding.
@happyclown: roolling his own again
If the universe is infinite, why is matter finite? Why does matter stop at some point, and empty space extends to infinity?
Or does the universe end at the point where matter stops?
I don't get it. ;)
Mass is a property of matter, and space is a function of mass. "Height" is a property of vertical space and BREADTH is a property of horizontal space. Put it out now before you choke.
It's all so self-oriented.
The universe isn't infinite. At the moment of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitesmally small, then space began exploding outward in all directions and it's still expanding now.
Think of space as the ocean and matter as boats floating on the ocean. Now imagine that the ocean is expanding in every direction. That's the universe.
This isnt really a condition, as any planetary system is likely to have at least 1 orbital body at the correct distance, sol has 3 (venus earth mars). also, the condition that the star not be too large or small isnt really relevant, since that just changes where the habitability zone is. In fact small red swarf stars may be more optimal for the formation of life than yellow dwarfs (sol). There are orders of magnitude more of them as well. Larger stars will burn out faster, which will reduce the probability that intelligent life will form around them, but that doesnt preclude it from forming.
There is no evidence that rotation is necessary, only that it may speed the evolution of simple life by mixing the primordial seas.Quote:
* needs rotation (not too fast (life needs recovery or lots of energy), not too slow (weather...))
No it doesn't, again this may encourage evolution but it is not a requirement. It's perfectly feasable to assume that given literally billions of years of evolution around a red dwarf that life could adapt to unpredicatable weather patterns. Remember that red dwarves burn for so long, trillions of years, that many of the original ones from the creation of the universe are still around.Quote:
* needs a moon to stabilize its axis
[quote]
* needs to have an atmosphere
* which is not toxic
* but the planet may not entirely consist out of gas
[/qoute]
These are not requirements. Toxic is a relative term at best. Life exists in the deep ocean that requires the 'toxic' gases emitted by smokers. There is no reason that intelligent life could not form on a hot jupiter planet. Most of the things we make out of metal etc. can be made out of organic compounds.
No. It only needs liquid water part of the time to form life. And given trillions of years of evolution, versus the mere hundreds of millions earth has had, There is no reason to assume that intelligent life couldnt adapt to survive cold periods by freezing just as some frogs do on earth.Quote:
* must feature water (or some substitute) and carbon (or some substitute)
* and must feature temperatures which keeps these things fluid and solid respectively
* all of the time
See! I tried to tell them all that but they don't listen.
The next step for cpjust is to realize that "empty" space (in the metaphor, an ocean) is just a functional illusion of atomic reality (ie, the "outside" of the boat). Matter is location -- atomized substance. The only possible property of substance is three dimensions, and space is an effect.
ps. it's Mercator's birthday, he was born in 1512.
Hook!! Hook!
Time is an illusion, a feable construct of the human mind that allows its particular means of processing information to make sense of the world. The universe is composed of super-strings. Each string is an indivisble quanta that exists simultaneously at all points that we woudl call 'time'.
To draw an analogy, the universe is like a plate of spaghetti, each particle is a noodle, and what we percieve as 'NOW' is just like cutting the plate in half and viewing the cross section. As we move forward in 'time' we are just viewing different cross sections, but those always existed, only our frame of refernce, which is indeed part of the cross section, changes. There are rules that prohibit 2 noodles from occupying the same place at the same time, and the noodles effect one anothers positions by mutual influence.