| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Evidence for the Existence of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms By: Evan on 4/26/2001; 11:34 AM 1. The Drake equation is based upon the size of the universe and thereby the number of planets orbiting suns like our own at similar distances, there is a very high probability of life being on other planets. I don't remember the exact numbers but its pretty much 100% certainty (actually more like 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 but I thought it was okay to round)that life exists on other planets. 2. My school's hot dogs. The meat is green and as far as I know, there are no terrestrial animals that both have green meat and are large enough to be made into hotdogs (as far as I know the brains of arthropods are the only really green animal flesh around), therefore the hotdogs must come from sources outside this planet. 3. Martha Stewart- She is most likely an alien but I suppose she could be a human possessed by a demonic entity. I'm more for the theory that she is an alien however. 4. A friend of mind, who shall remain nameless because she threatened to have her spaceships come and dissect me if I tell anybody admitted to being an alien. 5. The disappearance of socks from the dryer; Alien biologists are colecting foot excretion data. 6. The strangely high rate at which the toilet paper in my bathroom is used up. I didn't use it, my brother didn't use it (he's not lying I know because he uses wet ones because he gets some sort of chafing rash thing), and my parents don't use that bathroom because the toilet leaks. Therefore aliens have been using my bathroom when they are on this planet and need to make a pit stop.
Re: Evidence for the Existence of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms By: Brian Carnell on 4/26/2001; 12:03 PM At 12:50 PM 4/26/2001 -0400, Evan wrote: >1. The Drake equation is based upon the size of the universe and thereby >the number of planets orbiting suns like our own at similar distances, >there is a very high probability of life being on other planets. I don't >remember the exact numbers but its pretty much 100% certainty (actually >more like 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 but I thought >it was okay to round)that life exists on other planets. If used in this way, the Drake equation is entirely tautological (or was this meant to be satirical like the rest of the list?) >3. Martha Stewart- She is most likely an alien but I suppose she could be >a human possessed by a demonic entity. I'm more for the theory that she is >an alien however. Okay, you've got me there.
Re: Evidence for the Existence of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms By: Evan on 4/26/2001; 3:57 PM How is that repetitive (I looked up tautological since I couldn't remember what it meant although MLA editor always said my papers had tautology and it apparently means repetitive.)? I admit its not actually really evidence maybe I phrased the title wrong. The Drake equation works on probabilities so I guess its not hard evidence but based on the size of the universe and the number of planets like ours the probability for the existence of life is extremely high. And by the way what satire? I was completely serious!!!! How can those school hotdogs be green? They're not always green but often they are! Also, where do the socks and toilet paper go? Admittedly Matthew Patterson had a theory involving the socks about their going to a different space time continuum, but the toilet paper is left completely unexplained. Also there is the admitted alien who once again shall remain name less so that all my organs remain within the confines of my body.
Re: Evidence for the Existence of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms By: Mark Morgan on 4/26/2001; 6:53 PM A tautology is not a repetitive statement, but a circular argument. That is, it's an argument that assumes its conclusions. How do we know the Bible is true? It is the word of God. How do we know the Bible is the word of Bible? The Bible says so. As for the Drake equation, it doesn't prove anything. It attempts to calculate the probability of intelligent life elsewhere. It's a bunch of variables like "number of planets that life has arisen" that you can pretty much put any random guess in, because we don't know.
Re: Evidence for the Existence of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms By: Brian Carnell on 4/26/2001; 7:29 PM Mark wrote: A tautology is not a repetitive statement, but a circular argument. Right. Technically the Drake Equation is not necessarily tautological, but the way it is used tends to be. People who are sure life exists elsewhere plug in numbers that all but guarantee life elsewhere, while people who think it highly unlikely do the opposite. Besides, from what I've read the Drake Equation was never intended to be used in this way -- it was originally more of an illustration of the sort of things that would determine the odds of life elsewhere, especially since it contains so many basic over-simplifications. Plus I think a more interesting problem is not whether or not other complex life exists elsewhere, but whether or not we will ever be able to find it if it does. Assuming that the laws of physics don't change too drastically and warp drives are not a possibility, even with very fast advances in speculative propulsion methods the time it will take to explore even a small fraction of our nearby space is enormous. We could become a space faring species tomorrow and spend the next 50,000 years exploring space with only a very tiny possibility of finding life even assuming it actually is out there. (And I, for one, hope there is other life out there unless it aliens are just a bunch of Bajorans in which case no thanks).
Re: Evidence for the Existence of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms By: Evan on 4/26/2001; 7:38 PM okey dokey. It is based at least in part on astronomical observation though. I think it primarily concerns stars like ours. If life can happen on our world orbitting our sun, then it can happen on similar planets orbitting similar suns. However as it is I guess its not really proof any more than any intellectual construct about the nature of things is proof.
Re: Evidence for the Existence of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms By: Evan on 4/26/2001; 7:53 PM Well actually we already have the technology to explore the most neighboring stars. The Valkyrie rocket designs are capable of traveling at 94% the speed of light. We could get to alpha centauri in roughly five years taking into account the considerable amount of time to accelerate and decelerate to avoid turning the passengers into mush. The problems lie in space particulate matter, spacial radiation and actually getting together the funds to build a valkyrie. The particulate matter in space could punch a a hole in the hull of any vehicle traveling at high speeds between the stars. The radiation might do strange things to the human body. As of yet we have no shielding against those things and probably insufficient public support of interstellar travel.
Re: Evidence for the Existence of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms By: Mark Morgan on 4/26/2001; 9:16 PM Do you have a link or other reference to the Valkyrie project? The name is unfamiliar but I understand the basic concept, and there are a lot of technological and social hurdles facing such a project, including feeding and bathing people for five years.
Re: Evidence for the Existence of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms By: Brian Carnell on 4/26/2001; 9:31 PM I too would like any information on this Valkyrie Project. For one I am curious as to what sort of fuel it would use to get to 94 percent of light speed (which, to be frank, I think is all but impossible with even the speculative technology we have today). Realistically, we can probably get space vehicles up to 20 percent or so of the speed of light, but definitely *not* with any technologies that you could buy off the shelf today (antimatter explosions, for example, could do the trick). AFAIK the best single power source available today for space missions is nuclear fission reactions which wouldn't come anywhere close to providing the kind of power needed to get to a signicant percentage of C.
Re: Evidence for the Existence of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms By: Brian Carnell on 4/26/2001; 9:48 PM BTW, I'll give more data tomorrow, but given the most likely technology to deployed for space travel -- fusion -- can probably reach about 10 percent of the speed of light. That sounds pretty darn fast until you consider that at that rate it would take about 1 million years just to traverse the Milky Way. That's only 43 years or so to get to Alpha Centauri (assuming you can overcome the other problems -- which I think is certainly possible -- and leaving aside any relativistic effect of travelling so fast). Aside from AC, though, most of the interesting stars are all more than 1,000 years away even with incredibly fast fusion reactors. I think we are definitely headed into space, but when you start talking about exploring enough of the universe to discover other (hopefully) intelligent life forms you start talking about time frames that are likely longer than the length of time that homo sapiens has been on this planet.
Re: Evidence for the Existence of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms By: Evan on 4/27/2001; 7:25 AM Well at the end of the scifi novel The Killing Star, the authors discuss the technological feasibility of what occurs in the story. The valkryie rocket fuel if I remember correctly was hydrogen, although I could be wrong, its been a while since I read the book. I'll look in the book when I get home. The Valkyrie rocket is not so much a project right now as a theory. In theory it should work but no one has actually gotten together and built it.
Re: Evidence for the Existence of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms By: Evan on 4/27/2001; 7:39 AM http://beacon-www.asa.utk.edu/issues/v68/n38/lecture.38n.html The very bottom of this lecture discusses the valkyrie rockets. I made a mistake, they only go 92% the speed of light. However, reading through it I notice that they are fusion powered but I don't think controlled fusion has been discovered yet. He didn't go into the specifics so much but he did say it would be possible by the middle of the century, which is a bit further along then he said in the book.
RE: Evidence for the Existence of Extraterrestrial Lifeforms By: Brian Carnell on 4/27/2001; 7:56 AM At 08:41 AM 4/27/2001 -0400, Evan wrote: >Well at the end of the scifi novel The Killing Star, the authors discuss >the technological feasibility of what occurs in the story. The valkryie >rocket fuel if I remember correctly was hydrogen, although I could be >wrong, its been a while since I read the book. I'll look in the book when >I get home. The Valkyrie rocket is not so much a project right now as a >theory. In theory it should work but no one has actually gotten together >and built it. Ah. That is the main problem facing space exploration today -- lots of interesting theories, but not a lot of applicable technologies. The antimatter explosions I mentioned, for example, *should work* but given today's technological limitations it would cost probably $100 million and take several billion years just to obtain enough antimatter to launch a small 9kg or 10kg payload into space using the technology.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|