Deviation Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Do you believe in the existence of wormholes in space that can be used as shortcuts to other galaxies or to other regions in our own galaxie? No I mean we will have to create them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Having spent along time pondering the questions of life elsewhere in the universe,at one time fully accepting the probabilities.I now feel it incredibly niave and wishful thinking. For hundreds of years our best minds have contemplated not only the 'how's' but the 'why's' as well, to the process that dead inanimate mixture of chemical compounds can all group together to form life. One would say it impossible,(as science doesnt take to accepting miracles.)Were it not for on this planet LIFE actually happened. A fluke?or, inevitable outcome when planetary conditions suit the criteria?? its logical to accept the second on the basis WE exist.However intellectually you would therefore have to concede, that life in fact is created.In fact the universe itself is metaphorically alive! And only by our limited technology and comprehension do we conclude that we need a criteria of conditions. When pondering the math probabilities at the micro level,id like you to think about this! The fact that your here sat reading this is no small feat.Your mathematically highly improbable.For you to be 'here',trillions of atoms had somehow to assemble in such intricate arrangement so specialized and particular to you that it has never been tried before and in fact will only exist this once.For the 6 or more decades these atoms will engage in billions of deft co-operative efforts for you to remain essentially intact. Why these atoms bother to devote such attention for your benefit is the mystery,your atoms dont actually care about you,indeed they are unaware you are even there at all.They dont even know they are there! Yet for the remainder of your life they will co-operate with selfless devotion to keep you you. On your death they will dissasemble quietly into a pile of atomic dust(none of which science tells us was ever alive,but all of you)drift off into the universe to do whatever else and thats it. After all the ingredients for life on earth(nothing exotic) can be found in a typical chemistry lab...hydrogen,nitrogen,calcium,oxygen,sulper..a sprinkling of other very common elements and there you have it. Out of billions and billions of species that existed fighting for survival since the dawn of time,99.99% are gone.Life on earth is brief and dismaying. We believe our planet and its conditions promote life....funnily enough its even better at extinguishing it. If you subscribe to the later,wereby atoms throughout the universe go into forming life under the correct conditions(they make everything else from stars to rocks,air planets nebulae) Then unwittingly you have accepted the idea of the creator,regardless of the actual wittering of any athiest view points that some in these threads incessently drivel on about. One must readily accept that atoms need not exist at all,there's no law that requires the universe to fill itself with small particles of matter,produce light,gravity etc to which our existence hinges upon. They need not be a universe at all for them to float about in.For an incomprehensibly long time(if one can say time) they wasnt a universe at all,nothing.......nothing at all ANYWHERE!!! Life therefore is a one off miracle!! A fluke!! which for a brief moment in time you can enjoy.Or a grand design by the creator......you cannot have it both ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang292 Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I believe there is not only life, but intelligent life out there. We may never find it in out life times though. Good luck Grand kids! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towjyt Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 No I mean we will have to create them Then you think it is possible to create wormholes, shortcuts that would "fold space" so to speak, and make systems that are hundreds of light years away from us, closer to us that they naturally are? I don't think such a thing is/will be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 wow, i'm surprised this poll is so one sided I said yes but like any good scientist I was verging on unsure I think my hesitation was due to the wording of the question. I would have prefered "Do you think like exists elsewhere in the universe" and I would answer "probably, yes" to that. k, i'll shut up now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deviation Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Then you think it is possible[/i'] to create wormholes, shortcuts that would "fold space" ... Based on human knowledge of space bending I want to know why U doubt it ? Space bending will not be the end of science , we always come up with something new, Need is the mother of all inventions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Based on human knowledge of space bending I want to know why U doubt it ? Would you be good enough to summarise the "human knowledge of space bending" for the non cogniscenti. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deviation Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Would you be good enough to summarise the "human knowledge of space bending" for the [i']non cogniscenti.[/i] I am bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towjyt Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Based on human knowledge of space bending I want to know why U doubt it ? Space bending will not be the end of science ' date=' we always come up with something new, Need is the mother of all inventions.[/quote'] Human knowledge of space folding does not exist. Some scientists theorize that space is bent because of gravity and some even theorize that shortcuts could exist between points in space, but there is no base of provable knowledge about it. It is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deviation Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Human knowledge of space folding does not exist. Some scientists theorize that space is bent because of gravity and some even theorize that shortcuts could exist between points in space' date=' but there is no base of provable knowledge about it. It is nonsense.[/quote'] Really ? Well I am not a scientist but I have got brains that U cannot wash. Look at this image The space is bend near the black hole, if you follow the red line then in the area where space is bend ( or streched ) , U will cover the distance in a shorter distance, Got the point ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towjyt Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Really ? Well I am not a scientist but I have got brains that U cannot wash. Look at this image The space is bend near the black hole' date=' if you follow the red line then in the area where space is bend ( or streched ) , U will cover the distance in a shorter distance, Got the point ?[/quote'] Is the illustration a photograph of a real phenomonon, or is it a graphic representation of a theory? In short, anyone with artistic talent can draw a picture of anything that he can imagine. That is a long way from establishing a scientific fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuhrerkeebs Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 I voted that I don't know, although I do believe that there is life out there somewhere. However, I'm not going to give a definite "yes" or "no" answer until my belief can be verified. Some scientists theorize that space is bent because of gravity and some even theorize that shortcuts could exist between points in space, but there is no base of provable knowledge about it. Except for all of the predictions and explanations it gives that we've verified that the classical non-relativistic Newtonian theory of gravity doesn't offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towjyt Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Except for all of the predictions and explanations it gives that we've verified that the classical non-relativistic Newtonian theory of gravity doesn't offer. Such as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuhrerkeebs Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 All of the laws of special relativity are special cases of general relativity (hence the word "special"), and special relativity has been verified to great accuracy. It explains gravitational redshift, light bending around the sun, and the previously unexplained motion of mercury. This should be sufficient proof for you, unless you're like those creationist nutcases and you like to toss out evidence from the real world because it doesn't fit your warped perception of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 I vote Yes, I think it would be extremely unlikely for life NOT to be "Out There" somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppers Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I voted Yes, because I think that if we were the only planet with life, the universe would be a very boring place indeed. PS. there is other life in the universe, as that is what I believe, so that is what is reality for me. Besides, the rest of you are just figments of my imagination anyways. jk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHtRO Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Such a philosophical question... Most of the arguments against life in the Universe on probabilistic grounds are flawed on two points: (1) they assume life must be "like us", and (2) they are based on an assumption about the size and population of the Universe. Spritually I'd say the Universe IS alive. How else do you explain consciousness? More practically, though even if we assumed that the chances of life arising around some star are only 1/1,000,000,000,000,000, there are still more than enough stars to cover the probability. I often consider that life exists as a symmetrical complement to entropy. Has anyone else ever puzzled over the fact that we can mathematically generate something like Sierpenski's Triangle using at least three different methods: IFS, cellular automata, and discrete fractal iteration of line segments; all of which are iterative (note: DNA is iterative)? Does life describe a fractal shape between 3 and 4 dimensions? Is the existence of information quantitative? Why does DNA have to be present for there to be "life"? Would any self-replicating, iterative process of such fractal dimension result in "life"? What is "life" anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Says Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 Human knowledge of space folding does not exist. Some scientists theorize that space is bent because of gravity and some even theorize that shortcuts could exist between points in space' date=' but there is no base of provable knowledge about it. It is nonsense.[/quote'] How can it be nonsense? Can you explain the bending of light around the sun as they tested around a solar eclipse to test Einstein's theory? I understand how you could possibly think it's for another reason but to rule out gravity all together? Seems rather close-minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 Such a philosophical question... Most of the arguments against life in the Universe on probabilistic grounds are flawed on two points: (1) they assume life must be "like us"' date=' and (2) they are based on an assumption about the size and population of the Universe. Spritually I'd say the Universe IS alive. How else do you explain consciousness? More practically, though even if we assumed that the chances of life arising around some star are only 1/1,000,000,000,000,000, there are still more than enough stars to cover the probability. I often consider that life exists as a symmetrical complement to entropy. Has anyone else ever puzzled over the fact that we can mathematically generate something like Sierpenski's Triangle using at least three different methods: IFS, cellular automata, and discrete fractal iteration of line segments; all of which are iterative (note: DNA is iterative)? Does life describe a fractal shape between 3 and 4 dimensions? Is the existence of information quantitative? Why does DNA have to be present for there to be "life"? Would any self-replicating, iterative process of such fractal dimension result in "life"? What is "life" anyway?[/quote'] Yes, exactly. I consider all living cells to be life, so I believe that life definately exists elsewhere in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPQuiceno Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 Such a philosophical question... Most of the arguments against life in the Universe on probabilistic grounds are flawed on two points: (1) they assume life must be "like us"' date=' and (2) they are based on an assumption about the size and population of the Universe. Spritually I'd say the Universe IS alive. How else do you explain consciousness? More practically, though even if we assumed that the chances of life arising around some star are only 1/1,000,000,000,000,000, there are still more than enough stars to cover the probability. I often consider that life exists as a symmetrical complement to entropy. Has anyone else ever puzzled over the fact that we can mathematically generate something like Sierpenski's Triangle using at least three different methods: IFS, cellular automata, and discrete fractal iteration of line segments; all of which are iterative (note: DNA is iterative)? Does life describe a fractal shape between 3 and 4 dimensions? Is the existence of information quantitative? Why does DNA have to be present for there to be "life"? Would any self-replicating, iterative process of such fractal dimension result in "life"? What is "life" anyway?[/quote'] That is interesting. You said that there is more than enough stars to cover the chances even if it was 1 out of a trillion. I never heard that before. Thanks for letting me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I vote yes. Life arose here out of basic elements. These same elements are present on all planets. If given the right temperature some sort of primordial soup should occur on other worlds. So life should begin elsewhere in the same fashion as it did here. Intelligent life is another matter, but I view it as probable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eon_rider Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Yes of course, Star Wars, Star Trek, E.T., Close Encounters, What more proof do you need??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkkazier Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 I certainly hope so, considering how long i've been letting SETI run their damn program throgu my computer, hoping for that one "Contact" moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now