Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #402556 > unrolled thread

Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-20 22:22 -0800
    Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-20 23:03 -0800
      Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-12-21 14:05 -0500
        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Darleen Sloop <aolenD@nedfdealln.org> - 2016-12-21 20:32 +0000
        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-21 22:25 +0000
          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 18:03 -0500
            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 15:37 -0700
          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-21 18:33 -0800
          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-12-21 19:06 -0800
            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-21 20:37 -0800
        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 14:43 -0700
          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-21 20:41 -0800
            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-12-21 22:55 -0700
              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-12-21 22:01 -0800
                Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-12-21 23:17 -0700
                  Re: We're robots, programmed by Nature to play "The Stay Alive Game". Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-24 08:17 -0800
                Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:06 -0700
            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:05 -0700
          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-22 09:36 -0800
        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-21 18:29 -0800
      Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-22 23:08 -0800
        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-23 09:37 -0800
          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-23 20:35 -0800
            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-23 20:59 -0800
              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-24 10:28 -0800
    Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 12:44 -0800
    Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-12-24 07:57 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#402556 — Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> if aliens exist on other planets...
> they would all look like us.
> 
> there is no logical reason for them to look any different from us..
> 
>  no logical reason at all!


i have never read a 'science fiction' book so i hadn't had my mind ...poisoned by science fiction fantasty.



there is no logical reason for them to look any different from us..
 no logical reason at all!


no scientific reason at all...



i mean, Real scientific reason at all....not that fake science yous pass along...everyday.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#402560

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > if aliens exist on other planets...
> > they would all look like us.
> >
> > there is no logical reason for them to look any different from us..
> >
> >  no logical reason at all!
> 
> i have never read a 'science fiction' book so i hadn't had my mind ...poisoned by science fiction fantasty.
> 
> there is no logical reason for them to look any different from us..
>  no logical reason at all!
> 
> no scientific reason at all...
> 
> i mean, Real scientific reason at all....not that fake science yous pass along...everyday.



and the Subject heading is a absurd title...


Why We Imagine Aliens...period!


There are no Aliens.


there is no logical reason for them to look any different from us..
 no logical reason at all!
 
 no scientific reason at all...
 
 i mean, Real scientific reason at all....not that fake science yous pass along...everyday.


Are We Alone? Fuckin Yeah!


next question.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402618

Have you looked at the universe lately ?

Incredibly big or infinite actually.

The supposition that Earth has the only life or even the only
intelligent life, is very clearly proposterous.

Get real !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402632

SteveGG wrote:

> Have you looked at the universe lately ? Incredibly big or infinite
> actually. The supposition that Earth has the only life or even the only
> intelligent life, is very clearly proposterous. Get real !

Of course not. Similar the relativistic thinking. That the Universe HAS to 
be finite. By other words, they are implying a domain bobble Universe, 
constrained by a Rigid, Impenetrable wall. Because if it is not, then that 
Universe will never achieve finitibility. They fail applying the correct 
boundary conditions to that manifold. Math modelling and Scientific 
Computation are not part of their curriculum. They can just detect arrived 
"gravitational waves" from other planets. Give me a break!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402646

In article <3dkl5ctlco4nj0k3011c4fpoksdgj38f01@4ax.com>,
SteveGG  <casagiannoni@optonline.net> wrote:
>Have you looked at the universe lately ?
>
>Incredibly big or infinite actually.
>
>The supposition that Earth has the only life or even the only
>intelligent life, is very clearly proposterous.
>
>Get real !

The state of affairs at this time is that *we don't know*.  It
would be cool if there were life elsewhere, but we haven't found
any yet.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402651

In article <oIK3MF.1G7@kithrup.com>, 
djheydt@kithrup.com says...
> 
> In article <3dkl5ctlco4nj0k3011c4fpoksdgj38f01@4ax.com>,
> SteveGG  <casagiannoni@optonline.net> wrote:
> >Have you looked at the universe lately ?
> >
> >Incredibly big or infinite actually.
> >
> >The supposition that Earth has the only life or even the only
> >intelligent life, is very clearly proposterous.
> >
> >Get real !
> 
> The state of affairs at this time is that *we don't know*.  It
> would be cool if there were life elsewhere, but we haven't found
> any yet.

That the universe is large does not imply that 
there is life elsewhere, let alone intelligent 
life.

If the digits of Pi contain all possible 
sequences of numbers (remember, they go on 
infinitely and don't follow any discernible 
pattern simpler than that used to calculate Pi) 
then there should be some sequence that, 
transcribed to ASCII, produces the complete 
works of Shakespeare.  How deep into Pi do you 
have to go to find that sequence if it is there 
at all?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402655

"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in 
news:MPG.32c4d43a412dabec98a830@news.eternal-september.org:

> In article <oIK3MF.1G7@kithrup.com>, 
> djheydt@kithrup.com says...
>> 
>> In article <3dkl5ctlco4nj0k3011c4fpoksdgj38f01@4ax.com>,
>> SteveGG  <casagiannoni@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >Have you looked at the universe lately ?
>> >
>> >Incredibly big or infinite actually.
>> >
>> >The supposition that Earth has the only life or even the only
>> >intelligent life, is very clearly proposterous.
>> >
>> >Get real !
>> 
>> The state of affairs at this time is that *we don't know*.  It
>> would be cool if there were life elsewhere, but we haven't found
>> any yet.
> 
> That the universe is large does not imply that 
> there is life elsewhere, let alone intelligent 
> life.
> 
> If the digits of Pi contain all possible 
> sequences of numbers (remember, they go on 
> infinitely and don't follow any discernible 
> pattern simpler than that used to calculate Pi) 
> then there should be some sequence that, 
> transcribed to ASCII, produces the complete 
> works of Shakespeare.  How deep into Pi do you 
> have to go to find that sequence if it is there 
> at all?
> 
Unlike pi, the universe is not, in fact, infinite.

-- 
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402665

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> 
> In article <3dkl5ctlco4nj0k3011c4fpoksdgj38f01@4ax.com>,
> SteveGG  <casagiannoni@optonline.net> wrote:
> >Have you looked at the universe lately ?
> >
> >Incredibly big or infinite actually.
> >
> >The supposition that Earth has the only life or even the only
> >intelligent life, is very clearly proposterous.
> >
> >Get real !
> 
> The state of affairs at this time is that *we don't know*. 

Speak for yourself, Honey...I know...yous don't know. 



> It
> would be cool if there were life elsewhere, but we haven't found
> any yet.

Maybe somewhere over the rainbow...


> 
> --
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Vallejo, California
> djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402668

On 2016-12-21 2:25 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <3dkl5ctlco4nj0k3011c4fpoksdgj38f01@4ax.com>,
> SteveGG  <casagiannoni@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Have you looked at the universe lately ?
>>
>> Incredibly big or infinite actually.
>>
>> The supposition that Earth has the only life or even the only
>> intelligent life, is very clearly proposterous.
>>
>> Get real !
>
> The state of affairs at this time is that *we don't know*.  It
> would be cool if there were life elsewhere, but we haven't found
> any yet.
>

No. We don't KNOW...

...but given the 70 billion trillion stars out there, it's a pretty good 
bet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402675

Alan Baker wrote:
> 
> On 2016-12-21 2:25 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > In article <3dkl5ctlco4nj0k3011c4fpoksdgj38f01@4ax.com>,
> > SteveGG  <casagiannoni@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> Have you looked at the universe lately ?
> >>
> >> Incredibly big or infinite actually.
> >>
> >> The supposition that Earth has the only life or even the only
> >> intelligent life, is very clearly proposterous.
> >>
> >> Get real !
> >
> > The state of affairs at this time is that *we don't know*.  It
> > would be cool if there were life elsewhere, but we haven't found
> > any yet.
> >
> 
> No. We don't KNOW...
> 
> ...but given the 70 billion trillion stars out there, it's a pretty good
> bet.



God does not bet or play dice...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402647

SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> wrote in 
news:3dkl5ctlco4nj0k3011c4fpoksdgj38f01@4ax.com:

> Have you looked at the universe lately ?
> 
> Incredibly big or infinite actually.
> 
> The supposition that Earth has the only life or even the only
> intelligent life, is very clearly proposterous.

Indeed. It is exactly as preposterous (which I can actually spell, 
troll-boy) as teh supposition that Earth does _not_ have the only 
life, since we have zero data on the subject beyond our own solar 
system, in which Earth is the only planet suitable for life as we 
know it.
> 
> Get real !
> 
Or not.

-- 
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402676

Alan Baker wrote:
> 
> On 2016-12-21 7:56 PM, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <o3ffug$9ot$1@news.datemas.de>,
> >  Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> While we have no data that directly supports the presence of life
> >> anywhere in the universe, we have lots and lots of data that there are
> >> something the order of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.
> >>
> >> Combining that data with the things we have learned about the formation
> >> of stars and planets, and we are left with the observation that
> >> somewhere out there among the 70 billion trillion stars (yes: 7 x 10^22)
> >> there are almost certainly many others that also support life and
> >> indeed, intelligent life.
> >
> > We do not know either how nor why life came into being on Earth,
> > so we know nothing of its probability of having developed elsewhere.
> > For all we know, Earth may be unique in this respect.
> >
> 
> It may be...
> 
> ...but with a population of 7 x 10^22 stars to choose from...
> 
> ...is it likely?
> 
> :-)

No, not likely...IMPOSSIBLE!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402681

In article <585B5972.7745@ix.netcom.com>,
 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > 
> > On 2016-12-21 7:56 PM, Virgil wrote:
> > > In article <o3ffug$9ot$1@news.datemas.de>,
> > >  Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> While we have no data that directly supports the presence of life
> > >> anywhere in the universe, we have lots and lots of data that there are
> > >> something the order of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.
> > >>
> > >> Combining that data with the things we have learned about the formation
> > >> of stars and planets, and we are left with the observation that
> > >> somewhere out there among the 70 billion trillion stars (yes: 7 x 10^22)
> > >> there are almost certainly many others that also support life and
> > >> indeed, intelligent life.
> > >
> > > We do not know either how nor why life came into being on Earth,
> > > so we know nothing of its probability of having developed elsewhere.
> > > For all we know, Earth may be unique in this respect.
> > >
> > 
> > It may be...
> > 
> > ...but with a population of 7 x 10^22 stars to choose from...
> > 
> > ...is it likely?
> > 
> > :-)
> 
> No, not likely...IMPOSSIBLE!

For all we know, the necessary format for life starting 
and surviving may require a special type solar system, 
or even a special type of galaxy, so speculating in such 
ignorance on the odds of it happening elsewhere 
or elsewhen is purely a mugs game.
of solar system
-- 
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402682

On 2016-12-21 9:55 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article <585B5972.7745@ix.netcom.com>,
>  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2016-12-21 7:56 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>>> In article <o3ffug$9ot$1@news.datemas.de>,
>>>>  Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> While we have no data that directly supports the presence of life
>>>>> anywhere in the universe, we have lots and lots of data that there are
>>>>> something the order of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Combining that data with the things we have learned about the formation
>>>>> of stars and planets, and we are left with the observation that
>>>>> somewhere out there among the 70 billion trillion stars (yes: 7 x 10^22)
>>>>> there are almost certainly many others that also support life and
>>>>> indeed, intelligent life.
>>>>
>>>> We do not know either how nor why life came into being on Earth,
>>>> so we know nothing of its probability of having developed elsewhere.
>>>> For all we know, Earth may be unique in this respect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may be...
>>>
>>> ...but with a population of 7 x 10^22 stars to choose from...
>>>
>>> ...is it likely?
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> No, not likely...IMPOSSIBLE!
>
> For all we know, the necessary format for life starting
> and surviving may require a special type solar system,
> or even a special type of galaxy, so speculating in such
> ignorance on the odds of it happening elsewhere
> or elsewhen is purely a mugs game.
> of solar system
>

What we KNOW is that the universe runs by certain physical laws and 
those laws give rise to the same sorts of galaxies and stars throughout it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402683

In article <o3fq80$s2o$1@news.datemas.de>,
 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> On 2016-12-21 9:55 PM, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <585B5972.7745@ix.netcom.com>,
> >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2016-12-21 7:56 PM, Virgil wrote:
> >>>> In article <o3ffug$9ot$1@news.datemas.de>,
> >>>>  Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> While we have no data that directly supports the presence of life
> >>>>> anywhere in the universe, we have lots and lots of data that there are
> >>>>> something the order of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Combining that data with the things we have learned about the formation
> >>>>> of stars and planets, and we are left with the observation that
> >>>>> somewhere out there among the 70 billion trillion stars (yes: 7 x 10^22)
> >>>>> there are almost certainly many others that also support life and
> >>>>> indeed, intelligent life.
> >>>>
> >>>> We do not know either how nor why life came into being on Earth,
> >>>> so we know nothing of its probability of having developed elsewhere.
> >>>> For all we know, Earth may be unique in this respect.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It may be...
> >>>
> >>> ...but with a population of 7 x 10^22 stars to choose from...
> >>>
> >>> ...is it likely?
> >>>
> >>> :-)
> >>
> >> No, not likely...IMPOSSIBLE!
> >
> > For all we know, the necessary format for life starting
> > and surviving may require a special type solar system,
> > or even a special type of galaxy, so speculating in such
> > ignorance on the odds of it happening elsewhere
> > or elsewhen is purely a mugs game.
> > of solar system
> >
> 
> What we KNOW is that the universe runs by certain physical laws and 
> those laws give rise to the same sorts of galaxies and stars throughout it.
 
Until we know a good deal more about how life came into existence,
or could have come into existence, than we know now, any such speculaton 
re its having come into existence elsewhere is purely a mugs game.
-- 
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402931 — Re: We're robots, programmed by Nature to play "The Stay Alive Game".

"Jeff-Relf.Me"  wrote in message 
news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Dec.22--3.10A.Seattle.2016...

Virgil wrote: > Until we know a good deal more about how life came into 
existence, > or could have come into existence, than we know now, any such 
speculaton > re its having come into existence elsewhere is purely a mugs 
game. People want to know where/when "life" can exist in the Cosmos. By 
"life" they mean themselves and their progeny. We're robots, programmed by 
Nature to play "The Stay Alive Game"; including: Breathing, Pissing, 
Shitting, Breeding, etc. "The Stay Alive Game" is our sacred "Religion". We 
consume "fuel" ( eXergy, energy that can do work ), same as the sun and 
everything else. "Life Extension" comes at a price; the choice is: 1 - Live 
FASTER, breathing FASTER. - OR - 2 - Live longer. Horses live 7 times longer 
than squirrels because, per pound, they consume oxygen 7 times SLOWER. A 
dormant bee lives many months; once activated, it dies a few weeks later. 
Why ? Because the active bee consumes oxygen FASTER.


*** Good observation, Relfie ... so why don't you try an experiment:
See how long you can hold your breath !!!
We'll let you know if the experiment fails ... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402725

Alan Baker:

Do you agree that riots occured, leading to hundreds of arrests, 
during the protests over Trump's election?

*One* answer, not 

yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no
/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/n
o/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/
no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/yes/no/

like you're been doing.

We both (and everyone else) know you *can't* answer once, and stick 
with it, since the answer is "Yes, Clinton supporters are far more 
prone to criminal violence than Trump supporters or Obama haters." 
And you *can't* accept that, due to your illness.

Get help, Alan. Seriously. Before you hurt yourself. You're not
interacting with the world around you any more.





-- 
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402724

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:585B5972.7745@ix.netcom.com: 

> Alan Baker wrote:
>> 
>> On 2016-12-21 7:56 PM, Virgil wrote:
>> > In article <o3ffug$9ot$1@news.datemas.de>,
>> >  Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> While we have no data that directly supports the presence of
>> >> life anywhere in the universe, we have lots and lots of data
>> >> that there are something the order of 100 billion galaxies
>> >> in the observable universe. 
>> >>
>> >> Combining that data with the things we have learned about
>> >> the formation of stars and planets, and we are left with the
>> >> observation that somewhere out there among the 70 billion
>> >> trillion stars (yes: 7 x 10^22) there are almost certainly
>> >> many others that also support life and indeed, intelligent
>> >> life. 
>> >
>> > We do not know either how nor why life came into being on
>> > Earth, so we know nothing of its probability of having
>> > developed elsewhere. For all we know, Earth may be unique in
>> > this respect. 
>> >
>> 
>> It may be...
>> 
>> ...but with a population of 7 x 10^22 stars to choose from...
>> 
>> ...is it likely?
>> 
>> :-)
> 
> No, not likely...IMPOSSIBLE!
> 
As impossible as you giving up the lotion addiction?

-- 
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402730

Alan Baker wrote:
> 
> On 2016-12-21 10:05 PM, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <o3fpd6$ql8$1@news.datemas.de>,
> >  Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-12-21 9:45 PM, Virgil wrote:
> >>> In article <o3fj7k$fg7$4@news.datemas.de>,
> >>>  Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2016-12-21 7:56 PM, Virgil wrote:
> >>>>> In article <o3ffug$9ot$1@news.datemas.de>,
> >>>>>  Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While we have no data that directly supports the presence of life
> >>>>>> anywhere in the universe, we have lots and lots of data that there are
> >>>>>> something the order of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Combining that data with the things we have learned about the formation
> >>>>>> of stars and planets, and we are left with the observation that
> >>>>>> somewhere out there among the 70 billion trillion stars (yes: 7 x 10^22)
> >>>>>> there are almost certainly many others that also support life and
> >>>>>> indeed, intelligent life.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We do not know either how nor why life came into being on Earth,
> >>>>> so we know nothing of its probability of having developed elsewhere.
> >>>>> For all we know, Earth may be unique in this respect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It may be...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...but with a population of 7 x 10^22 stars to choose from...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...is it likely?
> >>>
> >>> Even with that many stars, an exact duplicate of our solar system history
> >>> is highly unlikely, and with anything less than an exact duplicate of
> >>> our solar system's history, and possibly even our galaxy's history, we
> >>> have no idea whether the startup of life is even possible, much less
> >>> likely.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why do you imagine it must be an exact duplicate?
> >
> > Anything less would not guarantee the same result,
> > and even an exact duplicate sufficiently before life
> > has come into being would not guarantee the same result.
> >
> 
> "Guarantee"? No.
> 
> But look at it this way:
> 
> If the odds are 1 in a million trillion against life forming around
> another star, then there are most likely 70,000 other stars with life
> around them.



Your "If" doesn't work. It disagrees with nature.

There are no "odds".

There are no ratios.


"in a million trillion" is a made up amount that doesn't exist.

There is only One earth...there is no 'other' amount.


GET REAL!



ra·tio
'raSHe?o/
noun
noun: ratio; plural noun: ratios

    the quantitative relation between two amounts showing the number of times one value contains or is contained within the other.




odds
ädz/
noun
plural noun: odds

    the ratio between the amounts staked by the parties to a bet, based on the expected probability either way.




There is only one Earth.




wishful thinkers is all yous are.



Okay, I'll make it simple for you...



'There is only one Earth per Universe.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402663

SteveGG wrote:
> 
> Have you looked at the universe lately ?

Not really...not lately..

> 
> Incredibly big or infinite actually.

The reason Why it's so Big is to make room for new Stars, ...not people having trouble finding an apartment in Brooklyn,
or parking in Boston.



> 
> The supposition that Earth has the only life or even the only
> intelligent life, is very clearly proposterous.

I'm the only intelligent life on this planet, ...the rest of yous have to leave.


> 
> Get real !


You actually belive you're going to die someday and all of a sudden the aliens will show up?


Get something...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web