Life on other planets?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

12/12/2007, 4:52 PM
Bald Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

You mean - Wikipedia LIED to me?!:eek:

Substitute in this new speed into my theory, and the answer ends up the same. Unless we can stumble on teleportation, I don't think we're "unlikely to be more than a couple of centuries off being able to do that reliably ourselves", as John said.

Mealwhile in Medieval Europe:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Medieval Pineapple Stu

Even if horses can travel at 10 miles per hour, substitute this new speed into my theory, and the answer ends up the same. Unless we can stumble on some type of mechanical horse, I don't think we're "unlikely to be more than a couple of centuries off being able to get to China reliably ourselves", as Medieval John said.
12/12/2007, 5:02 PM
GavinZac

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bald Student

Mealwhile in Medieval Europe:

Mechanical horses are at least within the limits of physical possibility. Teleportation would only be a useful solution if travelling at the speed of light was too slow.

However, because teleportation would work by creating an exact matter replica of the person at the other side, then destroying the existing "original", you would need to get the information for reconstructing the person from Point A to Point B. Here is where the problems would arise as this information cannot travel faster than light anyway, and you'd be just as well off travelling by light-speed carrier.

Of course, using the Douglas Adams theory, we could travel faster than light if we could somehow achieve travel by the supra-photon power of bad news.
12/12/2007, 7:18 PM
Bald Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by GavinZac

Mechanical horses are at least within the limits of physical possibility. Teleportation would only be a useful solution if travelling at the speed of light was too slow.

However, because teleportation would work by creating an exact matter replica of the person at the other side, then destroying the existing "original", you would need to get the information for reconstructing the person from Point A to Point B. Here is where the problems would arise as this information cannot travel faster than light anyway, and you'd be just as well off travelling by light-speed carrier.

Of course, using the Douglas Adams theory, we could travel faster than light if we could somehow achieve travel by the supra-photon power of bad news.

Firstly, kudos on describing a teleportation machine. I didn't know they made them yet.

Also, this brings us back to John's original argument. Your teleportation machine is capable of getting people to our neighbouring planets, which was the only element missing from his theory.
12/12/2007, 7:41 PM
GavinZac

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bald Student

Firstly, kudos on describing a teleportation machine. I didn't know they made them yet.

the dont make them yet as we havent perfected the art of subatomic restructuring.

the alternative is some sort of particle accelerator to shoot your existing matter to the other point at extreme speeds. they do make these ones already but they'd have to do it one at a time and if something gets in the way of a few of your particles, you'd be in bits!

Quote:

Also, this brings us back to John's original argument. Your teleportation machine is capable of getting people to our neighbouring planets, which was the only element missing from his theory.

capable of getting to our closest neighbours, yes, but then we know that they are not suitable for life (as we know it, Jim). Our closest neighbouring solar systems are light years away and we dont know if our hypothetical teleporter would work because we dont know if its possible to send information at the speed of light without darkened glass guiding it eg fiber optics. Regardless, due to the vagaries of statistics, while the probability of there being life in the universe is 1, the probability of there being life in Alpha Centauri is 0.
12/12/2007, 9:21 PM
stann

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

..o The land speed record has gone up from 600mph to 750mph
...
And I'm sure there's more.
...
This has obvious connotations for space travel. At 17500mph, it'll take 165000 years to reach the next star over, 4.3 light years away. I think the next star again is 10 light years away. So if we double the space speed record, we're still 80000 years away. The payback on that project isn't particulary good. If that project doesn't go ahead, how are we going to double the speed again, to bring us a mere 40000 years away?

These increases in land speed are due to improvements in existing technologies though.
Any practically useful improvements in the speed of space flight will require one or more huge leaps in technology, akin to when we strapped propellors and wings to that horse ye were talking about. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Let's now look at another intelligent life form on another planet around another star.
...
Why would it leave its planet to go to another one, many light years away? Why would it overcome the obvious budget constraints we've looked at to make the jump? Answer - it quite possibly wouldn't.

In all likelihood they wouldn't, but two reasons why they might:
Firstly simply because they could, if it was the case that technologically they could, if you follow me. Why do people insist on climbing mountains? :D
Secondly because they had to. Not trying to be a Gloomy Gus but that Sun of ours won't stay as our benevolent provider forever. Assuming we don't kill ourselves off in the meantime, in few billion years it will, unless we work out a way to get the feck out of here!

Oh, and just as an aside, that teleportation device for getting to other planets wouldn't be of much use unless and until we send someone there first with the other half of the machine. ;)
12/12/2007, 9:25 PM
GavinZac

Quote:

Originally Posted by stann

Oh, and just as an aside, that teleportation device for getting to other planets wouldn't be of much use unless and until we send someone there first with the other half of the machine. ;)

The replicator would, but assuming we're at the point where we can construct atoms from subatomics, we might be at the point where we can shoot those particles just the right speed and distance to line up. You know, like bowls. :D
12/12/2007, 9:58 PM
stann

Now that I will happily give any amount of iridium credits to see!

Your very being in this man's hands. :D
13/12/2007, 8:27 AM
Sligo Hornet

Quote:

Originally Posted by stann

Now that I will happily give any amount of iridium credits to see!

Your very being in this man's hands. :D

Could be dangerous being "beamed up".....him having a biased view and all:eek:
13/12/2007, 6:04 PM
John83

Quote:

Originally Posted by osarusan

But it is just as likely, statistically, that the Earth be the most developed civilisation as any other civilisation.

That statement is equivalent to saying that there's a 50:50 chance I'm the tallest man on earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GavinZac

...we dont know if our hypothetical teleporter would work because we dont know if its possible to send information at the speed of light without darkened glass guiding it eg fiber optics...

As an electronic engineer who's done research on free space optical communication and has a working knowledge of fiber optics, I can confidently say that that sentence is very silly.
13/12/2007, 6:17 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bald Student

Mealwhile in Medieval Europe:

See, the problem with your medieval analogy is that it doesn't actually address the point I'm making.

I'm not suggesting that it's technologically impossible to get to distant stars. I'm theorising that it may be economically impossible. Big difference. You're thinking like an engineer, whereas I'm thinking like an accountant.

To put it in language you may understand, imagine you invent a new spaceship which can get to Alpha Centauri in 5000 years. It's still useless for practical interstellar travel, but it's also a vast improvement on what we currently have. What happens next?

Bald Student - "I've just invented a fabulous new spaceship. I just need �100bn to build it and..." *Scene missing* *Scene missing* "...and it's built."

Imagine putting yourself on Dragons' Den asking for funding for a project with absolutely no payback, and you'll begin to see the problems I'm raising. Which have nothing to do with the problems you were countering.
13/12/2007, 11:01 PM
Student Mullet

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Imagine putting yourself on Dragons' Den asking for funding for a project with absolutely no payback, and you'll begin to see the problems I'm raising. Which have nothing to do with the problems you were countering.

I think Christopher Columbus faced similar problems.
14/12/2007, 12:21 AM
GavinZac

Quote:

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

I think Christopher Columbus faced similar problems.

Columbus? Columbus thought he was going on a short hop to India the other way round. It'd be like us setting off in the direction of Alpha Centari in the hope of us finding the Moon.
14/12/2007, 12:28 AM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by John83

Assume there are absolutely loads of civilisations in the galaxy. Further assume that the state of development of these civilisations varies a lot. Statistically, there should be someone else miles ahead of us

Let's assume there are 1 million civilisations in the galaxy. They have all developed at a different rate, so there are 1 million differently developed civilisations.
One civilisation will be the most developed, and one civilisation will be the least developed.

What are our chances of being the most developed? Pineapple Stu says-

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

If there are x civilisations in the universe, it's a 1 in x chance that we're the most developed. Which is either 1, or very small, depending on x.

So we have a 1 in x chance of being the most developed, which in the above example is 1 in a million.

But my argument is that every civilisation has the same 1 in x chance of being the most developed, and the same (x-1) in x chance of not being the most developed.
So I said-

Quote:

But it is just as likely, statistically, that the Earth be the most developed civilisation as any other civilisation.

Our 1 in x chance is the same as the 1 in x chance of any other civilisation.

So when you say-

Quote:

Originally Posted by John83

That statement is equivalent to saying that there's a 50:50 chance I'm the tallest man on earth.

I don't think it is, unless the earth has only two people on it.

I'm not saying we are as likely to be the most developed as we are likely to not be the most developed. I'm saying every civilisation, including ours, has the same chance.

Now, if our chance of being the most developed civilisation is 1 in x and our chances of not being the most developed civilisation are (x-1) in x, then obviously it is very probable that there are lots of civilisations both ahead of and behind us, and it is impossible to determine how many civilisations are on either side of us.

The idea that a civilisation must be "miles" ahead of us, so far ahead in fact that they would have contacted us if they existed, is a large leap to make, when you consider that we have no way of determining how many civilisations are more and less advanced.
14/12/2007, 12:35 AM
kingdom hoop

Osarusan, when, or more importantly, why, did you start putting a second 'e' in argu(e)ment?
14/12/2007, 12:38 AM
osarusan

Ah yes, my Japanese keyboard uses an American English program, so little red lines appear all the time, and I basically ignore them. Civilisation has had red lines under it for the duration of this thread, as does any other "isation". Argu(e)ment - never noticed it!
14/12/2007, 12:56 AM
kingdom hoop

Damn yanks. Surely you can change the spell check setting to English English though. Not that you really need it, or so I would have thought at least. :)

Anyway, never mind, I was just curious as to whether I missed a language update from Oxford. I don't really like seeing the additional 'e' to be honest (cheers for the edit!!). Ha, just did a quick look around the net, and saw this gem, osarusan you must confess to impure thoughts!

When people think about masturbation, whatever the kind, their mind gets clouded and they spell argument as arguement. :D
14/12/2007, 1:07 AM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingdom hoop

Ha, just did a quick look around the net, and saw this gem, osarusan you must confess to impure thoughts!

When people think about masturbation, whatever the kind, their mind gets clouded and they spell argument as arguement. :D

Kingdem Hoep, I doen't knoew whaet you are taelking abouet. Doen't be stuepid.
14/12/2007, 1:18 AM
kingdom hoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by osarusan

Kingdem Hoep, I doen't knoew whaet you are taelking abouet. Doen't be stuepid.

Den't werry, thet's nermal, I wes thenking of yeu toe.

(sinds very Seth Africen no?)

Ok, that's enough of a grammatical interlude to this scientific gobbledegook!
14/12/2007, 1:38 AM
Student Mullet

Quote:

Originally Posted by GavinZac

Columbus? Columbus thought he was going on a short hop to India the other way round. It'd be like us setting off in the direction of Alpha Centari in the hope of us finding the Moon.

Would America have ever been discovered without that error?
14/12/2007, 2:03 AM
GavinZac

Quote:

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

Would America have ever been discovered without that error?

Given that America was "discovered", settled and populated by asians anything up to 75,000 years ago, we can safely assume yes, future events would not have had an impact on past migrations. Even from a European viewpoint, "discovering" america had happened before columbus, and would have happened after him too. Columbus merely had the honour of first reffering to the land mass as west india, engraining it in the minds of fortune seeking adventurers from that point on.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page