Has NASA found (potentially) extraterrestrial life? (1 Viewer)

[Mike375]

I'm not sure how that ties in with something being static or not? In your analogy, is Access the static?

Yes. And as is required for an atheist....the version does not change, no update and it does not become corrupt etc.

Its not a claim that it is fact-based. Science is fact-based. I think what you're getting caught up on is that facts can change.

Atheists always claim to deal with facts but the facts are changing and thus the basis for your argument "today" will change.

Lightwave has just posted the number of stars is infinite. I don't think that was the accepted number in the past.

I have no problem working with hypothetical situations. How has the floor been pulled out from under them? In that they had been wrong? If so, it seems like the ideal situation is absolute certainty? You'll only find such claims in religion.

If you base an argument on certain data or facts and the data/facts are changed then your argument has gone, the floor has been pulled from under you.

Again, you're conflating chances to mean the same thing as odds. I'm probably not explaining myself very well.

If you're stricken with cancer, and you ask the doctor what your chance of survival is, and he says "Poor", that's a world of difference from him telling you that your ODDS of survival are 1 in 500.

Agree. But he might say your odds of survival are low or poor.

The first statement is not a scientific statement. It is not fact-based. It is the doctor's guess based on his experience. If he tells you your ODDS, then that is based on science. Facts. Likely, he has seen thousands of patients with your same situation and only 1 in 500 survive.

His first statement is a basic estimate and because there are so many variables he will probably never say something like 1 in 500.

But even if he quotes 1 in 500 and has 1 million cases to draw upon the 1 in 500 is a prediction for the future and subject to changes in medical technology, new drugs and so and so might be very inaccurate.

So he ends saying the odds or chances of survival are low or poor.

 

[Mike375]

That is know for a fact?

It is not a known fact but there are stars in every direction so many we can't count. In fact not just stars there are so many Galaxies we can't count them.

And we're pretty good at counting.[/quote]

Is correct to say that if there are an infinite number of stars then there must be an infinite number of galaxies.

Is the infinite number of stars as your post indicates, that is, based on observation as opposed to some mathematical method.

 

[Lightwave]

Is correct to say that if there are an infinite number of stars then there must be an infinite number of galaxies.

I think that's a correct assumption.

Is the infinite number of stars as your post indicates, that is, based on observation as opposed to some mathematical method.

My understanding of the material is that this is based on observation.

I should qualify this they don't have the facility at present to count all the galaxies but my understanding is that they are having a go at it. There is also problems with the counting method which are theoretical. As far as they can tell the universe is a little over 14 billion years old. If everything was created at once as they believe there has only been 14 billion years in which light has had time to reach us. Therefore from our perspective the universe appears 28 billion light years across. It could be much bigger than that however because they consider light to be a constant we can only see light 14 billion light years out. Any amount of telescope power won't help that it will always be a limit.

So I guess technically it may one day be possible to count all the stars. At the moment I don't think its even been done for the Milky way let alone for the Universe. Even if they had a computer which could do the counting they could come up with a finite number which would still not represent the correct figure because it is theorised that it is impossible to see anything outside of our bubble. Not because it doesn't exist but because the light just hasn't got to us yet.

 

[Mike375]

Lightwave,

The few times I have read about star counting it has been on the basis of the number of stars in an "area" and strength of light and so on and then mutiplying, that is, same as you might do if wanted to count the grains of sand on the beach. get the area and depth of the beach and then count the grains in a small tin.

With the size or width of the universe that we can see would that also be distorted for its measurement because so many stars would be dead. How long do they last, 10 billion years?

To me we are missing something. It would be like in 1800 some aliens are on earth detonating nuclear bombs about the place. The scientists and explosive experts of the day would be simply bashing their heads against the wall trying to figure out what was happening. Without the nuclear energy knowledge every theory or idea they could come up with would not even be close.

 

[Galaxiom]

The odds/chances of a star/planet system forming whereby an "earth" is formed is remote in the extreme, just like none of the other runners finishing the race or all being disqualified.

Wrong. It is like a race where each competitor has a separate finish line that is so remote from all other competitor's finish lines that they cannot see if anyone even made it to the others lines.

The officials at our finish also ran the whole way with our competitor and have no contact with any other officials.

A conclusion that no other runners completed the race because we have not seen anyone else finish is absurd.

 

[Mike375]

Wrong. It is like a race where each competitor has a separate finish line that is so remote from all other competitor's finish lines that they cannot see if anyone even made it to the others lines.

The officials at our finish also ran the whole way with our competitor and have no contact with any other officials.

A conclusion that no other runners completed the race because we have not seen anyone else finish is absurd.

Is it true that new stars form? If a new star is forming do you rate the chances of an earth like planet forming as very low, very high or perhaps unlikely in the extreme.

Or if like, in our Milky Way how do rate the chances of another earth like planet existing.

And from a previous post are you prepared to state the speed of light will never be exceeded. In othe words if the distance between the earth and a star is 10 light years will a journey always require 10 years or more.

As a side note, lets pretend you are living on another earth 10 light years away and I want to pass a message onto you. If we both approach each other at 3/4s the speed of light then do we meet in the middle in less than 10 years.

 

[Galaxiom]

Is it true that new stars form?

Yes. The bright blue stars are hot new ones.

If a new star is forming do you rate the chances of an earth like planet forming as very low, very high or perhaps unlikely in the extreme.

Depends on the definition of Earth-like but probably very low. It would have to be from a cloud of dust and gas that had already been involved in a supernova. Something like the chance of winning a lottery. Maybe 1 in 100 million for a single star formation event.

Or if like, in our Milky Way how do rate the chances of another earth like planet existing.

At those odds we would only have in the order of 3000 in the Milky Way.

And from a previous post are you prepared to state the speed of light will never be exceeded.

Yep.

In othe words if the distance between the earth and a star is 10 light years will a journey always require 10 years or more.

Depends on who has the clock. At speeds approaching the speed of light it will take much less than ten years for the traveller because the distance gets less due to relativistic foreshortening of space. But for a stationary observer it will never be less than ten years.

If we both approach each other at 3/4s the speed of light then do we meet in the middle in less than 10 years.

With each of us doing 3/4 of light speed we would meet in the middle after three years and four months by our clocks.

Observers back home will see we met at six years and eight months.
(They are smart enough to allow for the five years it takes the light to get to them when they see it eleven years and eight months after we left.)

Now assuming we can turn around instantaneously and continue at 3/4 x c it will take another three years and four months to get home.

When we get there 13 years and four months will have passed for them but only six years and eight months for us.

 

[Mike375]

Depends on the definition of Earth-like but probably very low. It would have to be from a cloud of dust and gas that had already been involved in a supernova. Something like the chance of winning a lottery. Maybe 1 in 100 million for a single star formation event.



At those odds we would only have in the order of 3000 in the Milky Way.

I have been doing a fair bit of internet searching on it and when you factor in the chances of life being there is get very remote.

What do you think of the The Fermi paradox.

Yep.

Is never being able to exceed light speed a generally accepted situation?

Depends on who has the clock. At speeds approaching the speed of light it will take much less than ten years for the traveller because the distance gets less due to relativistic foreshortening of space. But for a stationary observer it will never be less than ten years.



With each of us doing 3/4 of light speed we would meet in the middle after three years and four months by our clocks.

Observers back home will see we met at six years and eight months.
(They are smart enough to allow for the five years it takes the light to get to them when they see it eleven years and eight months after we left.)

Now assuming we can turn around instantaneously and continue at 3/4 x c it will take another three years and four months to get home.

When we get there 13 years and four months will have passed for them but only six years and eight months for us.

So I could pass a message to you in less than 10 years.

Or if I was doctor who had a miracle drug to cure you and you needed the drug in less than 10 years then I could get the drug to you?

 

[Mike375]

Another question

Let's say we have a rod or a bar that is 10 light years long and reached between the two planets.

If I move the bar a foot towards the other planet and just for the exercise we will say it took 1 second, when does the person on the other planet see the bar move? Or if like a string between the two planets and I tug on the string etc

 

[Galaxiom]

I have been doing a fair bit of internet searching on it and when you factor in the chances of life being there is get very remote.

The probability of life forming given the conditions of early Earth are unknown but estimates continue to move in the direction of more likely. Any of the tiny probabilities involved in forming the right planet at the right distance from the right star and the right chemicals getting together are overwhelmed by the immensity of the Universe.

If the chances were one in a billion billion there would still be thousands of places with life.

What do you think of the The Fermi paradox.

Fermi didn't grasp the immense distances between stars. The Milky Way is a billion, billion kilometres across. Even if there are other advanced tecnological civilisations in the Milky Way right now, the most likely distance between us and them will be very large and well beyond contact let alone visits. We would have to be very lucky to have one within a contactable distance.

At such distances a signal beam would have to be precisely focussed and aimed to be strong to reach us. If they scanned their heavens with the beam covering an area the size of our orbit around the sun for one second it would still take millions of years to cover the whole area andwe could easily miss it or dismis it as a glitch in the equipment.

Much of the Milky Way is obscured by dust and even a very powerful beam could not reach us.

Is never being able to exceed light speed a generally accepted situation?

Yes, because as I explained earlier it is not so much a speed in the ordinary sense but a fundamental property of SpaceTime. Realise that high speed not only changes time but distance and mass of the moving object.

To reach relativistic speeds requires not only supplying a source of classical kinetic energy (1/2.M.V^2) but also a Relativistic component. An object with a non-zero rest mass will have infinite mass at the speed of light. Consequently it is impossible for any mass to ever reach that speed.

The protons in the LHC accelerator at CERN are the equivalent of the amount of hydrogen gas occupying the volume of a fine grain of sand at normal temperatue and pressure. At full power these protons have the kinetic energy of a TVG train travelling at over 220 Km/hour.

So I could pass a message to you in less than 10 years. Or if I was doctor who had a miracle drug to cure you and you needed the drug in less than 10 years then I could get the drug to you?

Yes, I was moving at relativistic speed and we use my clock to measure the time.

 

[Galaxiom]

Another question

Let's say we have a rod or a bar that is 10 light years long and reached between the two planets.

If I move the bar a foot towards the other planet and just for the exercise we will say it took 1 second, when does the person on the other planet see the bar move? Or if like a string between the two planets and I tug on the string etc

It is impossible to move the whole bar one foot in one second by applying a force to one end. Even if you moved the end at this rate the movement would be absorbed as compression of the length of the bar.

The acceleration could not propogate along the bar faster than the speed of a compression wave (ie the speed of sound.)

 

[Mike375]

It is impossible to move the whole bar one foot in one second by applying a force to one end. Even if you moved the end at this rate the movement would be absorbed as compression of the length of the bar.

The acceleration could not propogate along the bar faster than the speed of a compression wave (ie the speed of sound.)

Can I move it over a day or a month etc.

Won't there be a limit to the compression depending on the rate of acceleration.

So does this mean if I move the bar and make a phone call to my mate on the other the planet to tell him I have moved the bar then

1) My mate gets the phone call 10 years later

and

2) He does not see the bar move until whatever time it takes for speed of sound in the bar to travel 10 light years, so maybe 1000s or millions of years later.

 

[Lightwave]

Lightwave,
With the size or width of the universe that we can see would that also be distorted for its measurement because so many stars would be dead. How long do they last, 10 billion years?

Yes correct some of the images of stars and even galaxies are representations of what that galaxy or star was like when the light left it. If that was 14 billion years ago then the star or galaxy could well no longer exist.

Stars vary in how long they last with the general rule being large stars have short lives and small stars have long lives. There are specific estimates of how long each type last. Look up Hertzprung - Russell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence

To me we are missing something. It would be like in 1800 some aliens are on earth detonating nuclear bombs about the place. The scientists and explosive experts of the day would be simply bashing their heads against the wall trying to figure out what was happening. Without the nuclear energy knowledge every theory or idea they could come up with would not even be close.

Your not wrong there probably missing loads and very definitely missing some fundamental things. In part that was the genius of Einstein - not only did he know how to figure out things but he knew the right things to investigate and importantly where to start.

It should be noted that he was chucked out of college for generally acting irreverantly towards his tutors.

Unfortunately not everyone that flunks their college courses are geniuses that know better than everyone else.

 

[Mike375]

If I shine my torch at the other planet then after 10 years it lights up the ground where my mate is standing on the other planet.

If I now move the torch a little bit how long does it take for my mate too see a different piece of his ground being illuminated.

 

[Lightwave]

He will see it immediately - but he is watching a live replay of what you did ten years ago.

Its like watching old movies. The film has taken 10 years before you watch it but when you watch it it runs in normal time.

 

[Mike375]

Your not wrong there probably missing loads and very definitely missing some fundamental things. In part that was the genius of Einstein - not only did he know how to figure out things but he knew the right things to investigate and importantly where to start.

It should be noted that he was chucked out of college for generally acting irreverantly towards his tutors.

Unfortunately not everyone that flunks their college courses are geniuses that know better than everyone else.

The nuclear thing always stick in my mind because I remember the Physics and Chemistry subjects in high school. They were two different subjects and we had also had Maths 1 and Maths 2. I remember the physics teacher saying something like "we are now about throw out a lot of the stuff you learn in the chemistry class"

I knows this is highly illogical but to me the limit of the speed of light seems highly illogical given the size of the universe and the life expectancy of stars. In other words one would expect something to be there that is much faster.

With Einstein I imagine he would have been a great lateral thinker.

 

[Mike375]

He will see it immediately - but he is watching a live replay of what you did ten years ago.

Its like watching old movies. The film has taken 10 years before you watch it but when you watch it it runs in normal time.

Not sure we are on the same page??

I shine the torch and wait the 10 years and at the point I know the ground next to him is illuminated. Then I move the torch a little bit, that is, after 10 years and 5 seconds after turning the torch on. How long after I move the torch before he sees a different piece of ground being lit up?

Edit: Obviously I am replacing the bar or piece of string with a light beam.

 

[Lightwave]

He will not see it move for another ten years and 5 seconds.

The light physically has to travel the distance

 

[Lightwave]

A different analogy.

Imagine you can throw a rock to him but that he is 10Light years away. You have previously asked him to throw it back to you (at the speed of light) when he catches it.

You can throw it and go off in ten years time he'll catch the rock and then throw it back.
You won't receive it back until 20 years after you first threw it.

Now think of a torch firing out small rocks at the speed of light. It sprays them across the void like a particle wave. The information of any movement of the torch takes ten years before the recipient can "catch" or see the tiny rocks / read light.

With a piece of string or a bar none of the individual atoms need to move very far to convey information and so information can be transferred instantaneously.

 

[Mike375]

With a piece of string or a bar none of the individual atoms need to move very far to convey information and so information can be transferred instantaneously.

But that fouls up because of compression and the compression is limited to speed of sound in the material the bar is made of. I searched and got the same as what Galaxiom said. If not for that then it would mean we could send morse code and on the instant basis

But with the compression what happens if I move the bar a foot and then another foot etc.

Back to the light beam for a moment. Let's say I change the angle of torch so the beam is moved 100 yards on the other planet and I move the torch to the new angle at a steady rate so it takes me a 100 seconds. Does that mean 10 years later he starts to see the illuminated patch start to move and keep moving gradually over 100 seconds at a yard a second.

From description of light being like a stream of little rocks I assume the moving the torch would mean the beam would look curved, almost like a bullet trajectory where the curve got steeper the closer to the other planet.