Page 3 of 3
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:16 am
by tnf
^misantropia^ wrote:tnf wrote:PS: You might want to give some specifics on what "much" is in regards to starting a self-sustaining chemical reaction that might spawn life. And don't use Miller's experiment.
Won't do. It's not the best example either; he only managed to create simple amino acids which you can't really compare to complex cellular life. A better one might be the catalystic properties of RNA but admittedly, it's debatable if bare strands of RNA can survive in a primordial soup.
To answer Fermi's question: what makes you assume they're still here? How long can a civilization survive before it collapses? Artifacts, remnants? Space is big... where to start looking?
Regarding Carter's stance: life on Earth didn't evolve particulary fast. It took nearly two billion years before more complex life emerged. Intelligent life taking time to develop is not really an issue: our sun has entered the second part of it's life after five billion years but an average red dwarf can burn for a hundred billion years (their cycles are more stable too).
I know, that is why I said not to use it (it is often the 'go-to' for people. You said it doesn't take much to get a self-sustaining reaction going. I was just saying you might want to throw in some specifics. I know all about catalytic and autocatalytic RNAs, but that doesn't address your initial comment about the relative ease of starting the aforementioned reaction.
Obviously red dwars have long, long lifespans... There are also arguments against them being good candidates for supporting planetary life - but there have been some data to the contrary - although none of it is absolutely convincing. The debate is obviously on ongoing one (do a google search if you are interested). So, don't know that the simple fact that these stars are 'stable' (and obviously much, much cooler) for longer timespans means we should eliminate the time issue in regards to the evolution of 'intelligent' life - we have another issue to deal with entirely in their case.
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:24 am
by [xeno]Julios
^misantropia^ wrote:Any specific reasons why it would have to be a G-type star?
Why only G-type stars? Stars that are larger than our sun (A and F-type stars) are much hotter than smaller stars and 'burn out' more quickly. This means that even if Earth-like planets are present in the habitable zones of large stars, there may not be enough time for life to evolve on them before the star either explodes or shrinks. However, since large stars emit more ultraviolet radiation (UV light causes mutations in organisms) they might be able to speed up evolution - but this is only a theory.
With stars that are smaller than our sun (K and M-type stars), their habitable zones will be much closer to the star - which means that any habitable planets will be orbiting very close to the star. So far so good, but if a planet is orbiting so close to a star, it becomes 'tidally-locked' to the star so that the same face of the planet is always facing the star (like the way the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth). This means that one side of the planet would be in perpetual daylight and the other side in perpetual night. Even so, it is conceivable that life might evolve under such circumstances.
Yet such planets have even more problems. Small stars can vary their luminosity (their brightness) by 0.1% due to flares and 'starspots'. 0.1% might not sound like a lot, but it can affect a planet's ecosystem extremely adversely.
http://www.ibiblio.org/astrobiology/pri ... findlife04
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:31 am
by tnf
[xeno]Julios wrote:^misantropia^ wrote:Any specific reasons why it would have to be a G-type star?
Why only G-type stars? Stars that are larger than our sun (A and F-type stars) are much hotter than smaller stars and 'burn out' more quickly. This means that even if Earth-like planets are present in the habitable zones of large stars, there may not be enough time for life to evolve on them before the star either explodes or shrinks. However, since large stars emit more ultraviolet radiation (UV light causes mutations in organisms) they might be able to speed up evolution - but this is only a theory.
With stars that are smaller than our sun (K and M-type stars), their habitable zones will be much closer to the star - which means that any habitable planets will be orbiting very close to the star. So far so good, but if a planet is orbiting so close to a star, it becomes 'tidally-locked' to the star so that the same face of the planet is always facing the star (like the way the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth). This means that one side of the planet would be in perpetual daylight and the other side in perpetual night. Even so, it is conceivable that life might evolve under such circumstances.
Yet such planets have even more problems. Small stars can vary their luminosity (their brightness) by 0.1% due to flares and 'starspots'. 0.1% might not sound like a lot, but it can affect a planet's ecosystem extremely adversely.
http://www.ibiblio.org/astrobiology/pri ... findlife04
Recent computer simulations (early 2000s) have addressed the 'tidal lock' issue and shown that it might not be one.
http://www.emse.fr/~yukna/researchers/reddwarf.htm
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:31 am
by Grudge
Therac-26 wrote:God=No
Jesus=A person existed, but was no more divine than i am
Ghosts/Spirits/Souls=Fuck no
UFO's/Aliens=Hypothetically possible, but they are certainly not abducting trailer trash and giving them rectal probes
Resurrection/Reincarnation=Negative
I that's the "Walking Bag of Meat" view of human existence..
I belive I need some more coffee right now, though.
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:33 am
by Ryoki
God: I'm very much opposed to the idea of a God.
Jesus: There was probably someone named Jesus on this planet at some point in time.
Ghosts/Spirits/Souls: No way i can ever believe in that.
Ufos/Aliens: Chances are very high that there is life somewhere else.
Resurrection: i don't really undestand what you mean. Reconstructing a mind after it's expired?
Re: What do you believe?
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:54 am
by MKJ
inphlict wrote:
God: nope
Jesus: I believe Jesus was a regular person who existed
Ghosts/Spirits/Souls: nope
Ufos/Aliens: aye. with a near infinite number of solar bodies out there, it would only be weird if there -wasnt- any other place that could or does host lifeforms of some kind
Resurrection: nay. death is part of the biological process. as is brainactivity.
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 10:42 am
by Venom333
God: Yes, but in specific way, not the way everybody believies.God is more like energy, not a person.
Jesus: Im not so sure, that he was God, but i think yes.
Ghosts/Spirits/Souls: Yes, if God exist, that also souls/spirits must exist
UFO's/Aliens: Yes, there's a lots of proves of aliens existance.
Resurrection: What do u mean by that? No, i don't believe, that oridinary human can be ressurected.
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 11:01 am
by Nightshade
God: I want very much to believe in a God, not necessarily the Judeo-Christian idea per se, but in a God. Trouble is, I simply can't at this point.
Jesus: I believe he existed, but that's about it.
Ghosts: This is a difficult one, as I've seen a lot of things that can't be easily explained scientifically. I don't buy into every ghost story I've heard, but there are a lot of "hauntings" and other paranormal events that cause me to reserve judgement for now. Also, it seems to me that if I accept the existence of ghosts then I may have to accept the idea of a supreme being and an afterlife.
Aliens: Yes. I've seen the equations showing the extremely low probabilities of their existence, but I still think that they're out there. I think that humans are astonishingly ignorant about the contents of the universe.
Resurrection: I assume you mean reincarnation here, and no, I don't believe in it. Don't believe in past lives, either.
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 12:02 pm
by Venom333
Saying exactly: Yes, I believe in reincarnation.
But reincarnation is diffrent thing from resurrection. It is not obliged to be mistaken these two things.
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 1:13 pm
by horton
god - no
Jesus- there might have been someone who did some nice things, but he didnt walk on water and he isnt the son of god
ghosts - nope
UFO/Aliens - im sure they exist somewhere
Re: What do you believe?
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:13 pm
by CrinklyArse
inphlict wrote:Souls.
Yes. 2 of my aunties are medians/spiritualists. they give readings for free and having watching these readings, and healings i do believe. i supposed you'd have to be there, but them being family and getting nothing out of doing it makes me believe even more.
They do readings of all sorts. One is using pictures: You put a picture of maybe a passed relative, or a close friend, in an envelope, seal it and hand it to hem. Then they will without opening it, tell you something, maybe about him, or about someone deceased that was close to one of you.
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:16 pm
by DiscoDave
God= Yes (though I dont beleive in the relegious interpretation of him/her)
Jesus= No
Ghosts/Spirits/Souls= No
UFO's/Aliens= Yes
Resurrection= No
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:20 pm
by inphlict
I didn’t want to use reincarnation because people often view it as souls being reincarnated in a different body which is different from resurrections because that just implies you are brought back to life after death.
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 10:57 am
by Whiskey 7
God: believe there is something bigger watching over us (me) or bloody hope so 
Jesus: no doubt someone was on the planet named Jesus and he may have done good deeds, but as to the Son of (a) God, well I don't know 
Ghosts/Spirits/Souls: Possibly but it is probably just tricks of the mind
Ufos/Aliens:
1. high probability here since time/space is infinite we may have been here before (see icon/nick)
2. high probability that there is life somewhere else other that this spec in the cosmos. .
Resurrection: See above time/space is infinite
Re: What do you believe?
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 11:56 am
by iambowelfish
CrinklyArse wrote:inphlict wrote:Souls.
Yes. 2 of my aunties are medians/spiritualists. they give readings for free and having watching these readings, and healings i do believe. i supposed you'd have to be there, but them being family and getting nothing out of doing it makes me believe even more.
They do readings of all sorts. One is using pictures: You put a picture of maybe a passed relative, or a close friend, in an envelope, seal it and hand it to hem. Then they will without opening it, tell you something, maybe about him, or about someone deceased that was close to one of you.
Sounds like something Derren Brown could do. Only he'd say it was psychology rather than souls.
Re: What do you believe?
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 12:20 pm
by iambowelfish
inphlict wrote:Resurrection: I think there is a possibility that our physical consensus is resurrected if the particles that make our brain are put back together at some point in time after our death. This can either occur by technology in the future or with a lot of time.
The particles that make us are taken apart during life...
As I understand it your brain today won't be made of any of the stuff it was made of a couple of years ago.
I don't really see that resurrection makes sense. Which me is the real me, the 4 year old who was terrified of death, the old man with a degenerating brain, a moment before someone decides he's dead?
Do you resurrect just the brain? Sever off the nerves at some point? Do you include glands secreting mood altering hormones, the medicine in my gut making me drowsy, the pollen in my nose making me cranky, do you resurrrect the tips of my fingers, my nails, my hair, the light above my head keeping me awake, the voices around me reminding me who I'm supposed to be?
You can't draw a line, seems like I could extend the definition of me right now to fill the universe.
Resurrect that.