They are out there! Somewhere!

[Gangrell]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: quote: Originally posted by Gangrell: Maybe people would read your posts and not repost the same thing if yours wasn't so long winded, a scientific observation hmmmm [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Yes, Vaskez, I mean you can't really expect people to actually think and read a post more than a few sentences long after all! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I'm disappointed that I've seen a few people agree with the 'waste of space' argument since I flagged an issue with it, yet no one has attempted to address the issue. I would really like to know how you can hold that position and not also believe that (a) the universe was created by someone, or (b) the universe was created for a purpose (and indeed, if you hold b and not a, how can that possibly be?). Now I'm not suggesting that either a or b are wrong, but those positing the waste of space theory haven't clarified the theory with either of these positions. So how can it be? [/QUOTE]Ok, first of all, I was joking when I said that to Vaskez.

Secondly, the 'waste of space' arguement I think you misunderstood. I did not say I didn't think someone created the universe, or wether or not it has a purpose, I do think the universe was created for reasons, but how does anyone know what they are? No one can say, it's just here. This is my entire point Aelia, I believe the universe was put here for a reason, and that it would be a waste if nothing else was here but us. Among hundreds of thousands of lightyears with no life on any planet, we're alone in this void among stars, galaxies and novas. There would have been no purpose of creating space of this magnitude where a species evolved from apes was the best the creator could have done, get my point yet?

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: If we're all just here by pure luck that all the right things happened to occur for us to be possible, then there's no reason there should be life anywhere else.

Thirdly, IMO, evolution of a species is not done by luck Aelia. If someone did put us here and created the universe for a reason, then how would things develope by luck?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Rokenn: If there isn't then it is an aweful waste of space [img]smile.gif[/img] Personally I still think the jury is out on whether or not there is intelligent life here on Earth. Though the Dolphins have a strong claim to the title [img]tongue.gif[/img]

If they have a strong claim to the title, why don't they see the Tuna nets?

[Ziroc]

Just a friendly reminder to keep Religion out of this

[Intrepid]

Originally posted by Bozos of Bones: Unless they destroy the universe by creating a gravity well because of sheer speed. An object travelling at lightspeed must have NO mass, because it's mass would become several million times heavier, and it's gravitational force would become strong enough to knock the galaxy out of it's point of expansive rotation. That'd be pretty fast for us on Earth too.

Firstly it is impossible to accelerate to the speed of light only objects initially traveling at this speed can travel at this speed (such as light and radio waves) and although light can be slowed down by entering a more dense meterial as soon as it leaves it instantly continues at 299,792,458 m/s.
secondly i disagree, ever heard of a partical accelerator? they can accelerate a particle to the speed of 99.99999 C which is %99.99999 of the speed of light, and although this does massively increase their mass (no pun intended [img]smile.gif[/img] ) as far as i know we are still here, i know a space craft would be bigger but it does not need to travel at the speed of light.[/QB][/QUOTE]

And another thing, the absolute zero doesn't mean water is frozen(it does, but much more), it means that energy is zero at the point of zero temperature, and thus, movement is zero. The force needed to move an object who's movement is zero is infinite, that's why we call it an absolute. In my oppinion, temperature affects lifespan. The lower the temperature, the slower the organism and the metabolism and thus the longer lifespan. If temperature is high, lifespan would be short(er).

I realize that at 0 Kelvins matter no longer exists, but the point of my argument was that we judge temperature as that which is normal to us on Earth, and that there is a much wider range out there.

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Gangrell: Secondly, the 'waste of space' arguement I think you misunderstood. I did not say I didn't think someone created the universe, or wether or not it has a purpose, I do think the universe was created for reasons, but how does anyone know what they are? No one can say, it's just here. This is my entire point Aelia, I believe the universe was put here for a reason, and that it would be a waste if nothing else was here but us. Among hundreds of thousands of lightyears with no life on any planet, we're alone in this void among stars, galaxies and novas. There would have been no purpose of creating space of this magnitude where a species evolved from apes was the best the creator could have done, get my point yet? quote: Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: If we're all just here by pure luck that all the right things happened to occur for us to be possible, then there's no reason there should be life anywhere else.

Thirdly, IMO, evolution of a species is not done by luck Aelia. If someone did put us here and created the universe for a reason, then how would things develope by luck? [/QUOTE]Well of course, it's not luck if there was a creator. But if there wasn't, my point still stands . 'If' connotes that something might be the case, as of course it might be given the lack of evidence from either side.

However, your opinion is perfectly fair enough [img]smile.gif[/img] . As I said, I'm not planning to argue with anyone who believes the universe was created by someone, just that you can't hold that a universe empty of other intelligent life is a waste of space and NOT also hold that there is a creator. Which you have shown [img]smile.gif[/img]

But... I have to say I still don't buy that an empty universe is necessarily a waste of space if there was a creator, though it could be the case. As I said earlier, it would only be a waste of space if the creator personally valued intelligent life and felt that it was preferable to empty planets. Maybe he didn't! Maybe the creator feels that one planet with intelligent life is plenty, and values planets made of gas or bare rock very much as well. Maybe the creator looks upon a bare earth-like planet in a galaxy far far away and thinks, gee this is just as good as that noisy human-riddled earth! We humans are very egocentric - we believe we are the pinnacle of evolution, all paths lead to us and we're the best evolution (or a creator) could do. However to someone looking in at us, are we necessarily the 'best'? Surely the best is subjective - we have achieved no more than any other species by the simple fact that we have survived all this time. So many other species have become extinct over the last few billion years but all the species we see around us are still here. Lions, polar bears, skinks, hedgehogs - they have all found a way to survive long enough to reproduce and ensure their species is still around for the next generation. So why would it be necessary that there be other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe if we are no better, to a non-human, than anything else?

I really hope this post isn't seen as something that contravenes the religious discussion moratorium. It does concern religion, however I have no intention of arguing that anyone's religion is wrong or anything like that. My points are more 'within' the context of a creator belief rather than against it, and I would sincerely hope that it is seen as non-controversial and be left stand [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Gangrell]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: But... I have to say I still don't buy that an empty universe is necessarily a waste of space if there was a creator, though it could be the case. As I said earlier, it would only be a waste of space if the creator personally valued intelligent life and felt that it was preferable to empty planets. Maybe he didn't! Maybe the creator feels that one planet with intelligent life is plenty, and values planets made of gas or bare rock very much as well. Maybe the creator looks upon a bare earth-like planet in a galaxy far far away and thinks, gee this is just as good as that noisy human-riddled earth! We humans are very egocentric - we believe we are the pinnacle of evolution, all paths lead to us and we're the best evolution (or a creator) could do. However to someone looking in at us, are we necessarily the 'best'? Surely the best is subjective - we have achieved no more than any other species by the simple fact that we have survived all this time. So many other species have become extinct over the last few billion years but all the species we see around us are still here. Lions, polar bears, skinks, hedgehogs - they have all found a way to survive long enough to reproduce and ensure their species is still around for the next generation. So why would it be necessary that there be other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe if we are no better, to a non-human, than anything else?

Maybe I should have been more clear when I posted earlier, I'm not saying that it's a waste of space if there is no other intelligent life in the universe, no no no. What I was saying was it would be a waste of space if we were the only ones in the universe, no intelligent life or non-intelligent. Take for example, if there were other planets with inhabitants such as deer, bears, birds, or so forth then I'd say thats a good thing, not a waste.

[Zuvio]

When they finally got the Hubble to function properly, they've focused the telescope at a single point in space without moving for 10 minutes or so? What they saw was a huge array of solar systems, very sharply defined and very young. They supposed they were looking back into time, to the beginning of the universe. How weird is that? [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]

[Intrepid]

Originally posted by Zuvio: When they finally got the Hubble to function properly, they've focused the telescope at a single point in space without moving for 10 minutes or so? What they saw was a huge array of solar systems, very sharply defined and very young. They supposed they were looking back into time, to the beginning of the universe. How weird is that? [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]

Yeah, that is to do with the speed of light reaching the telescope, for example just looking at the light from the sun is looking back in time roughly 7 minutes, because that is the ammount of time it takes for the light to travel from the sun and reach us on earth, so the light from things even further away takes even longer to reach us.

[Bozos of Bones]

Ah, Intrepid, finally I found someone informed enough with who I can have a normal scientific conversation.

[Bozos of Bones]

If FTL(Faster Than Light) travel is impossible, how do aliens get to Earth. If they don't have FTL travel they either live in our system or travel at least 260 years from Alpha, Beta Centauri or whatever they're from(if they're not from Alpha or Beta Centauri, add 400 years to the trip). Wormholes are a possibility, but it's less than 1:decamegagiziliqunantillion to find a stabile two-way wormhole. That leaves us with sub-space, artificial gates and other things that are for now very Sci-Fi.