Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Is "space Exploration" A Pipe-Dream?
The NASA and Florida State University study revealed its findings on Thursday. They state that so far three Apollo astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, the first person to walk on the moon, have died from cardiovascular disease, apparently as a result of the extreme cosmic radiation they were exposed to during their missions.
It appears that not only is leaving the Earth's magnetic shield highly dangerous, there is also the massive problem of finding sufficient energy to launch rockets without the Earth's dwindling fossil fuel.
It appears that not only is leaving the Earth's magnetic shield highly dangerous, there is also the massive problem of finding sufficient energy to launch rockets without the Earth's dwindling fossil fuel.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
All the more reason to establish colonies elsewhere as soon as we feasibly can, Khan.
Science have come across seemingly impossible to breach limits in the past, and overcome them when more is understood. We have hardly scratched the surface in our understanding of reality. No reason to think apparent physical distance and light speed barriers will prove insurmountable. We already know that spooky action at a distance seems to occur.
Science have come across seemingly impossible to breach limits in the past, and overcome them when more is understood. We have hardly scratched the surface in our understanding of reality. No reason to think apparent physical distance and light speed barriers will prove insurmountable. We already know that spooky action at a distance seems to occur.
Khandro, //Stephen Hawking has said that if we were ever to find extra-terrestrial life be would be smart to leave it alone//
Stephen Hawking also said that humanity will eventually have to live in space or die out. He calls space travel ‘life insurance’ for the human race.
To the Nano Nanos …… If Stephen Hawking thinks it’s possible for us, why assume it's impossible for others? Do you know better?
Stephen Hawking also said that humanity will eventually have to live in space or die out. He calls space travel ‘life insurance’ for the human race.
To the Nano Nanos …… If Stephen Hawking thinks it’s possible for us, why assume it's impossible for others? Do you know better?
http://
This is my "go to" article for arguing why there is no intelligent life out there. Steve Jones puts it much better than I could.
This is my "go to" article for arguing why there is no intelligent life out there. Steve Jones puts it much better than I could.
I disagree with him.
The universe is so vast that there is a horizon from where not even light reaches us, no matter how unlikely the chance of advanced life is, it seems inconceivable it doesn't occur umpteen times in a space that large.
As the article mentions, we know that the building blocks for life are so common we can see them in the clouds of space. So the seeding suitable planets should be very common. After that one simply needs sufficient evolution time to come up with a species that develops intelligence.
It is unreasonable to say that because bacteria still exists that means advanced life didn't come from it. It is the sort of argument creationists try to use. From that start Eukaryotes did come into being; blast cells often enough and why wouldn't some mix and eventually serendipity comes up with something that will survive and be better ? In a vast volume and a long period of time there is no reason to suspect this or some similar joining of simpler cells for resulting in a benefit for both, hasn't occurred multiple times.
Saying something is a one-off when all one has checked is the local area over a few decades, is a massive leap of faith. IMO far greater than assuming it as it has happened at least once there is no reason it wouldn't happen in umpteen other places too. We being "special" or one-off is the sort of assumption religions like to make.
The rest appears to be evolution, something that will naturally happen wherever cells are created, and ought not be dismissed as something that wouldn't ever happen elsewhere.
The universe is so vast that there is a horizon from where not even light reaches us, no matter how unlikely the chance of advanced life is, it seems inconceivable it doesn't occur umpteen times in a space that large.
As the article mentions, we know that the building blocks for life are so common we can see them in the clouds of space. So the seeding suitable planets should be very common. After that one simply needs sufficient evolution time to come up with a species that develops intelligence.
It is unreasonable to say that because bacteria still exists that means advanced life didn't come from it. It is the sort of argument creationists try to use. From that start Eukaryotes did come into being; blast cells often enough and why wouldn't some mix and eventually serendipity comes up with something that will survive and be better ? In a vast volume and a long period of time there is no reason to suspect this or some similar joining of simpler cells for resulting in a benefit for both, hasn't occurred multiple times.
Saying something is a one-off when all one has checked is the local area over a few decades, is a massive leap of faith. IMO far greater than assuming it as it has happened at least once there is no reason it wouldn't happen in umpteen other places too. We being "special" or one-off is the sort of assumption religions like to make.
The rest appears to be evolution, something that will naturally happen wherever cells are created, and ought not be dismissed as something that wouldn't ever happen elsewhere.
The size of the Universe itself isn't enough reason to assume that the conditions necessary for intelligent life must have occurred multiple times. Probability just doesn't work like that. On the other hand it certainly *is* reason enough to state with confidence that we have barely started searching for life in any form, and are in no position to rule it out yet.
Unfortunately, we probably will never be in such a position, because the vastness of the universe and the relative tininess of what we are looking for stack the odds heavily against ever finding something that anyway might not exist. But that doesn't matter really. Whether or not there are intelligent lifeforms out there, we should search for them as long and as thoroughly as possible.
Unfortunately, we probably will never be in such a position, because the vastness of the universe and the relative tininess of what we are looking for stack the odds heavily against ever finding something that anyway might not exist. But that doesn't matter really. Whether or not there are intelligent lifeforms out there, we should search for them as long and as thoroughly as possible.
I usually dislike the phrase "that's just academic" but, when it comes to discussions about life evolving outside of our solar system, I don't mind it one bit.
O_G's logic and assessment of odds versus trials is ineffable but any positive results are like an object on a shelf beyond our reach, even with our longest ladder. We cannot see, measure or analyse them, so they might as well not be there.
In the meantime, let's hope the pilots of our first truly speedy spaceship remember they have to pick their way through the asteroid belt, before hitting full throttle.
Or perhaps we should spend some years, exploring the asteroids, for signs of crashed inbound alien ships?
O_G's logic and assessment of odds versus trials is ineffable but any positive results are like an object on a shelf beyond our reach, even with our longest ladder. We cannot see, measure or analyse them, so they might as well not be there.
In the meantime, let's hope the pilots of our first truly speedy spaceship remember they have to pick their way through the asteroid belt, before hitting full throttle.
Or perhaps we should spend some years, exploring the asteroids, for signs of crashed inbound alien ships?
'The size of the Universe itself isn't enough reason to assume that the conditions necessary for intelligent life must have occurred multiple times. Probability just doesn't work like that.'
The size of the universe means that the possibility of the 'miracle' conditions for life being repeated are multiplied, surely?
The size of the universe means that the possibility of the 'miracle' conditions for life being repeated are multiplied, surely?
Jim, //The size of the Universe itself isn't enough reason to assume that the conditions necessary for intelligent life must have occurred multiple times. Probability just doesn't work like that.//
Of course it works like that. More options must mean greater potential.
Mikey, //Cloverjo...thanks for that rational post !
From one rational person to another...nanu, nanu ! //
As Zacs-Master says Steve Jones has a hugely inadequate view of the size of the universe, so not rational at all.... and after your posts here the less said about your claim to rationality the better.
Of course it works like that. More options must mean greater potential.
Mikey, //Cloverjo...thanks for that rational post !
From one rational person to another...nanu, nanu ! //
As Zacs-Master says Steve Jones has a hugely inadequate view of the size of the universe, so not rational at all.... and after your posts here the less said about your claim to rationality the better.
Greater potential, sure, but that's not the same as certainty. It's a classic misconception of probability that in an infinitely large space anything that is not impossible is certain -- even more so here, because there are neither infinite planets nor an infinite amount of time so far for the almost impossible to have occurred (twice or more, I mean).
I'm not saying that I don't believe that there's intelligent life beyond earth -- simply that there is no basis for saying that it must exist. Steve Jones is being too pessimistic, but the point that strictly intelligent life appears far more fluky than life in general is still a valid one, and shouldn't be ignored lightly.
Obviously something that has happened once can happen twice, and we don't know how "fluky" or no the emergence of intelligent life really is. But we might be alone after all and at this point there's no way of knowing one way or another.
As I say, though, we should certainly keep searching.
I'm not saying that I don't believe that there's intelligent life beyond earth -- simply that there is no basis for saying that it must exist. Steve Jones is being too pessimistic, but the point that strictly intelligent life appears far more fluky than life in general is still a valid one, and shouldn't be ignored lightly.
Obviously something that has happened once can happen twice, and we don't know how "fluky" or no the emergence of intelligent life really is. But we might be alone after all and at this point there's no way of knowing one way or another.
As I say, though, we should certainly keep searching.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.