NASA releases a 4.3GB image that shows a small portion of the Andromeda Galaxy!

[MattBackHome]

Seeing as we only know of one planet with life, earth, depending on which way you look at it, the probability of there being life else where is 50/50. Either there is, or there isn't - depending on what causes life to occur, or what life or reality actually are (and the relationship between them)

You're right in that there are 2 options (Life or No Life), but that doesn't make the options equally likely.

 

[Grassman]

Albert Einstein.
Arther Compton.
Francis Collins.
John Eccles.
Max Plank.
Ernest Rutherford.
Michael Hulme.
The list is endless.

It can't possibly be endless. As there have only been x number of people on the planet. He didn't say name one in the future, he said name one. I.e. one that has lived or is alive.

 

[Mr H]

 

[Grassman]

Albert Einstein.

But let's look at Einstein for one second. An atheist once wrote to him asking about a news report that Einstein was religious. Einstein's reply:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

So you could argue that if Einstein had the knowledge we have today, he may well be a confirmed atheist as opposed to an agnostic.

 

[Triggaaar]

IMO people who believe life elsewhere is inevitable just because the universe is unimaginably big, simply haven't given the subject enough thought.

I take it then that you have given it a lot of thought, and you're saying life elsewhere isn't inevitable. Can you explain why?

It is one thing to think that there might be life out there - the Philae results tentatively show that the comet does have complex hydrocarbons on it, but quite another to conclude that intelligent life must necessarily evolve. Even if it does, in order for us to be able to communicate with it, that life has to firstly sufficiently develop technically to build radio telescopes (the most likely way we'd communicate) and, critically, be alive and communicating now (as opposed to previously or after we're all dead).

And even then, they'd be too far away for us to communicate with them.

Check out the first part of my signature for further details!

What the **** have you done!

 

[Triggaaar]

We're literally seeing into the past. That galaxy might not even exist anymore

A galaxy can merge with another galaxy, but apart from that, it can't cease to exist can it?

 

[Goldstone1976]

And even then, they'd be too far away for us to communicate with them.

What the **** have you done!

Yep, the distances would, most likely, result in a many hundred year (at least) lag each way in any conversation.

2015: receive signal from a planet 600 light years away (a VERY near neighbour)
2020: send return signal (it's got to take 5 years to agree the content, shirley?)
2620: our message received
2620: they send reply (they'll be more efficient than us. Bound to be; they're clever, these aliens)
3220: we receive their reply to our first message.

So, 1200 years to exchange:

Hi - anyone there?
Yep, we're here. How are you?
We're good - Is CMS' first touch still pretty bad?

Also, we'd have to seriously up the power of our radio telescopes to ensure the S/N ratio was strong enough to get our message over 600 light years.


I know; I'm sorry! It was up for a few days though

 

[Triggaaar]

You're right that technically we can't tell what might have happened in the intervening time, but so far we haven't seen anything in the universe that could destroy a galaxy. I'd be willing to bet all my remaining vCash -- indeed actual cash -- that Andromeda is still there.

I'd like to bet all of my actual cash, that it's not still there, and that it has in fact moved a bit.

 

[Triggaaar]

2020: send return signal (it's got to take 5 years to agree the content, shirley?)

At least.

2620: they send reply (they'll be more efficient than us. Bound to be; they're clever, these aliens)

They are.

Also, we'd have to seriously up the power of our radio telescopes to ensure the S/N ratio was strong enough to get our message over 600 light years.

Nah, the aliens have amplifiers on their receivers, and can receive even our weak signals.

 

[StonehamPark]

The image if viewed at maximum resolution would need the equivalent of 600 HD screens!

That's not a Galaxy!

 

[Triggaaar]

It is just as likely there are unique properties of this planet (or us) which make it the only place in the entire universe where life can/has happened.

That doesn't quite make sense*. The properties of our planet could be extremely rare, and mean that intelligent life isn't a given, but those properties aren't all required for basic life. For that you don't need much more water.

So until we can answer the hardest questions about life, or we find another planet with life, I would have it down as 50/50 of intelligent life existing elsewhere.

Saying 50/50 is just lazy. If we had the only galaxy in the universe, and there were only 1 million stars, do you think the chances of their being life outside of the solar system would be less?

 

[Triggaaar]

So no, it does not matter if there was a googol of planets, or just 42 - the likelihood of there being life elsewhere according to current knowledge remains the same.

That's not the best understanding is it.

 

[Triggaaar]

eh?

I'm saying that this: "So no, it does not matter if there was a googol of planets, or just 42 - the likelihood of there being life elsewhere according to current knowledge remains the same." shows a lack of understanding of probability.

Say for example, that scientist discover that with water, the right temperature, and the right mix of gases etc, that life can sometimes just start, given enough time. If that were the case, how can the chances of life be the same whether there are 42 planets or a googol of them?

 

[poidy]

I have two questions:

How does the universe end. I mean surely it can't be infinite can it. But at the same time it's just space so how can it stop you going any further?

Secondly what would the universe have looked like before the Big Bang?

 

[Goldstone1976]

I have two questions:

How does the universe end. I mean surely it can't be infinite can it. But at the same time it's just space so how can it stop you going any further?

Secondly what would the universe have looked like before the Big Bang?

1) Yep, it can be infinite, and also expanding. There are many different infinities.

2) The question you pose is a non sequitur. Current theory suggests that the universe didn't exist before the Big Bang. It's like asking "Where was I before my parents conceived me?"

The questions you pose are perfectly rational, but neither can be adequately explained in any language other than complex maths. Bummer, huh? It frustrates the hell out of me.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

The scale is indeed mind boggling ...... to us.

The scale of the ants nesting in your lawn, their universe isn't much bigger than your garden.
How might they conceptualise the scale of the possibility of an ant colony in the next street, or even the other side of our world?

Now, just suppose there is a being, sized to another scale beyond anything we have ever seen, such that our galaxy, the milky way, is nothing more than the equivalent of an ants nest in his garden .....

Jaw dropping ....

 

[clippedgull]

The scale is indeed mind boggling ...... to us.

The scale of the ants nesting in your lawn, their universe isn't much bigger than your garden.
How might they conceptualise the scale of the possibility of an ant colony in the next street, or even the other side of our world?

Now, just suppose there is a being, sized to another scale beyond anything we have ever seen, such that our galaxy, the milky way, is nothing more than the equivalent of an ants nest in his garden .....

Jaw dropping ....

You could extrapolate that measure of scale by looking at blood cells in our own bodies and DNA! We could be walking universes!

 

[Goldstone1976]

The scale is indeed mind boggling ...... to us.

The scale of the ants nesting in your lawn, their universe isn't much bigger than your garden.
How might they conceptualise the scale of the possibility of an ant colony in the next street, or even the other side of our world?

Now, just suppose there is a being, sized to another scale beyond anything we have ever seen, such that our galaxy, the milky way, is nothing more than the equivalent of an ants nest in his garden .....

Jaw dropping ....

And if that being had the same relative powers with respect to our galaxy as we do to an ants nest, e.g. the ability to totally destroy it in 30 minutes, what name might people reasonably give to such an omnipotent being? Such a being would be pretty God-like, huh?

 

[OzMike]

It can't possibly be endless. As there have only been x number of people on the planet. He didn't say name one in the future, he said name one. I.e. one that has lived or is alive.

What, have they now done away with figures of speech since I left!
You are all going to rack and ruin, or do you not say that anymore either.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Albert Einstein.
Arther Compton.
Francis Collins.
John Eccles.
Max Plank.
Ernest Rutherford.
Michael Hulme.
The list is endless.

When most of these scientists were alive, the majority of scientists were people of faith. However the opposite is true in 2015, I'd imagine less than 10% of scientists are folk of faith these days. It's also worth noting in the case of Max Planck that a person of faith came up with quantum theory which is seemingly more improbable than any religious dogma I've come across but obviously verifiable.