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

Groups > sci.physics > #609824 > unrolled thread

Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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 David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-12-25 08:25 -0600
          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 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-12-21 19:05 -0800
            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-12-21 20:56 -0700
              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-12-21 20:01 -0800
                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". moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-22 21:44 +0000
                        Re: We're robots, programmed by Nature to play "The Stay Alive Game". Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-24 08:17 -0800
                        Re: Show me a tall, fat, MouthBreathing 105 year old. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 14:12 -0800
                          Re: Show me a tall, fat, MouthBreathing 105 year old. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-20 19:00 -0500
                          Re: Show me a tall, fat, MouthBreathing 105 year old. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-01-20 18:08 -0800
                          Re: Show me a tall, fat, MouthBreathing 105 year old. Yuri Kretin <invalaid@invalid.com> - 2017-01-20 20:31 -0600
                      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 Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-12-21 22:45 -0700
                  Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-12-21 21:47 -0800
                    Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-12-21 23:05 -0700
                      Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-12-22 08:42 -0800
                        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:09 -0700
                          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-12-22 09:15 -0800
                            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:32 -0700
                              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-12-22 09:37 -0800
                                Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 10:25 -0700
                                  Gutless whining (was Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-12-22 10:29 -0800
                        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 Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:07 -0700
                        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:33 -0800
                          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-22 17:42 -0500
                            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 16:37 -0800
                              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-23 18:11 -0500
                                Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 14:43 -0800
                                  Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-26 18:04 -0800
                    Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:07 -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 Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:05 -0700
              Gutless whining Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-12-22 09:12 -0800
                Re: Gutless whining Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:32 -0700
              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-22 09:20 -0800
                Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:33 -0700
                  Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-22 13:43 -0800
                    Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 14:04 -0700
        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 "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 14:52 -0800
            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-26 17:57 -0800
    Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 13:36 -0800
      Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-21 18:02 -0500
      Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-21 15:33 -0800
    Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-12-24 07:57 -0500

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#609824 — 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]

#609827

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]

#609871

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]

#609890

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]

#609910

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]

#609932

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]

#609952

"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]

#610351

On 2016-12-21, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unlike pi, the universe is not, in fact, infinite.

Actually, we don't know that.

What we do know is that we can't see/detect directly anything further away
than a certain distance, cuz there hasn't been enough time yet.

Dave, and then there's the Big Rip theory for a future time-boundary
-- 
\/David	DeLaney	posting	thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that	grows the flower
It's not the clock that	slows the hour 	The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is	all it takes to	make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE	HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd	- net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

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

#609968

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]

#609970

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]

#609976

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]

#609917

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]

#609969

On 2016-12-21 1:43 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> 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.

No.

That is just so much nonsense.

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.

>>
>> Get real !
>>
> Or not.
>

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

#609974

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.
-- 
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

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

#609975

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?

:-)

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

#609977

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]

#609983

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]

#609984

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]

#609986

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]

#610069 — Re: We're robots, programmed by Nature to play "The Stay Alive Game".

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>A dormant bee lives many months;
>once activated, it dies a few weeks later.
>Why ?  Because the active bee consumes oxygen FASTER.

I already explained why this is wrong.

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web