Want to feel tiny and insignificant? Or... Galaxy Quest!

This isn’t an issue that can be solved by simple probability theory, theory that holds dear the common socio- and anthropological fallacy of the small town as microcosm of the entire country. The “logic” being applied is logic that has and will continue to change as our knowledge base grows.

My friend loves to watch X-Files. In a fit of intellectual euphoria, he quoted for me that “there are 10,000 Earth-like planets in the solar system alone”, and therefore there must be awesome aliens. The problem with that quote will actually evade some people who read it. This is indicative of a greater problem. These are not educated guesses.

We don’t understand the origin of life on this planet, but that absent understanding has been conjured up and used to assign probabilities to the characteristics of other planets, parsecs upon parsecs removed from our own. Why? To create the possibility of the “cool”.

Clearly you’ve never heard of this little thing we’re going to invent in the future called the Superimpeller.

Whadda ya mean, we don’t understand the origin here? “Random chemical processes assemble amino acids, which can self-replicate and mutate, and then it’s evolution until you get us.” There’s quibbles about the details, but the broad outline is clear.

As to the likelihood of aliens visiting: see the Drake equation.

WTF, Koontz? Which arguments are dangerously close to that?

It’s like you don’t even bother to read what anyone else is saying, and instead argue with a made-up opponent who’s clearly not as smart as you are.

I’m with you on this one, but I want the “who cares?” option on the poll.

Let’s say there’s no life out there, I’m guessing we won’t be able to prove that one in my lifetime. But if there is life out there, big whoop. I mean who’s really surprised by that? This place (the universe) is huge, of course there’s life out there! So then what? We can’t “talk” to them because our fastest means of communication takes forever and a day on that scale, and we sure as hell can’t visit them. Unless they’re like those Contact aliens.

So maybe we get like one round trip message to these guys before I’m dead, what are we gonna do, ask them what they think of Steam? Who cares? I’ll be playing Final Fantasy 62 by the time we get a response.

So there’s probably aliens that I will never see or talk to. Twin Snakes is out today and I can’t buy it because I just paid my rent. See? There are bigger issues, people.

I don’t see why the possibility that humans are the most advanced is prima facie ludicrous. Sure, it’s unlikely, but someone has to be first. Why can’t it be humans? I am arguing possibility here, not probability, of course. Don’t advanced cultures always blow themselves up or something? or has TV been lying to me again.

And, as others have noted, this is not an issue of capital-H Human capital-L Limitation. This is an issue of physics and math. No, fleas can’t build skyscrapers. They can’t travel faster than light either. As far as we know, nothing can.

I don’t think we are trying to solve a capital-D Debate here, and you’re the only one I see making absolute pronouncements about what is small-L ludicrous.

Troy

I think someone else already said this, but:

The “septillion is a big number” argument for alien life serves as its own defense. Just as there are a zillion planets out there that might be cooking up some life forms, there are a zillion lifeless planets between us and the one we’re “looking” for.

Assuming aliens exist, we’re not extremely likely to find them anytime soon.

No, Brian. You’re nearly entirely ignorant. Those of us who know some science understand quite a bit about this issue. Which is not to say we fully understand it, but we have a pretty good rough idea what’s involved.

Many of your arguments are dangerously close to “humans are special”, which is generally derided by cosmologists.

Actually, the argument is precisely that we’re not special. There’s nothing special about us whatsoever… which is why something resembling life probably exists on another planet. Jesus, even on logical grounds alone, your arguments are crap.

Argument based on Human Limitation is pretty silly.

We’re not arguing based on Human Limitation. We’re arguing based on cosmic (or, if you prefer, objective) limitation. We could be wrong… but we’re still basing our theories on theoretical limits as best we understand them, not those of the human body or mind.

This is one issue that Debate cannot solve.

Brian, when you’re the one debating, no issue can be solved.

I don’t think “debate” is the right word for it… Brian’s more into “thinking out loud”.

Ignoring Brian completely, I’d like to comment that that amazing image (thanks for the link) is eerily reminiscent of Van Gogh’s Starry Night.

Koontz posting on-topic now has the power to derail any thread, as a dozen people immediately must repond to him, even though they invariably say there’s no merit to what he says.

Oh, so it must be that image that every article about it exclaims “it’s sorta like Van Gogh’s ‘Starry Night’”!

Oh, so it must be that image that every article about it exclaims “it’s sorta like Van Gogh’s ‘Starry Night’”![/quote]

Heh. Haven’t heard that before (this link was my first exposure to the pic). Guess I’m not very insightful, eh?

The idea of figuring out the odds for intelligent life has been discussed endlessly. In fact, there’s even a mathematical equation for calculating the odds; it’s called the Drake Equation.

You can view a Drake Equation calculator here:

http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html

Well now that someone mentions the Drake equation, I’m reminded of a speech by Michael Crichton where he explains why exactly the Drake thing is a load of B.S. Quickly googled it, here you go

http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html

So, does he know what he’s talking about or is he just bitter about second-hand smoke (further down the article)?

Everyone load the full image.

Now scroll down the left margin, about 7/8 of the way down.

You’ll see a large, off-white galaxy, more or less edgewise to us with its right end tilted toward the top of the image.

Everyone see that?

Now scroll horizontally to the right, about 7/8 of the way across the image.

You’ll come to a very large, white-yellow galaxy with a lot of swirls and a very bright center, facewise to us.

Got it?

A couple of monitor inches below that, you’ll see a galaxy that shows as a small, very round, bright orange ball. It’s the one next to a sort of canary yellow smear.

See the one I’m talking about?

Think about how far away that one spot is, how many stars are in it, and how old those stars must be right now.

Well, you know what?

I fucked it.

Whoa!

— Andrew Dice Clay

I was pestering my friends and loved ones with the previous deep field exposures, so they’re all used to feeling tiny now. This new one impresses me as a work of photography since they said it was a million second exposure time. That’s almost 12 days, earning it a separate “Wow” from its subject matter.

Actually, no… as far as I know this is the single greatest argument against such a thing…[/quote]

This one is easy: you are completely wrong.

And now you are right. But a second ago, you were wrong, because you argued the same point you made here. Would you care to explain that?

Still with you…

Okay, okay…

And WHAM we suddenly change topics! This thought has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion to this point, Brian. “There is life on other planets”=“They have visited Earth” aren’t even close to equivalent. If I asked you “Brian, do you believe people live in Antartica?” and you answered “Bill, people from Antartica have never come here!” I would have to slap you, because you evidently didn’t understand my question. You just quixotically shifted the subject for the hell of it, I assume.

Did you complete your long-range scanning, Mr. LaKoontz? The Hubble shot in question is showing galaxies. A Hubble scope shot from orbit around Planet Zarkon in a nearby galaxy wouldn’t show Earth as a planet, much less if it was inhabited. And even if the Zarkonian Illudium P-32 Deep Space Modulator Scope could show Earth, even could pinpoint your pompous ass, there is no guarantee the Zarkons could do more than point and laugh. Primitive man could see the moon, but that doesn’t mean he could do any more than fling his feces at it and hide until dawn.

The universe, as you stated, is “nearly infinite.” If there is life in the furthest galaxy Hubble has shot, they may quite easily not have the resources, desire, or will to travel all the way over here to visit us, as I’ve stated. That does not invalidate their existence, Schroedingus.

Because the rail between Paris and Berlin doesn’t run through Cleveland, Magellan. I forget, because you interchange the passive tense and the personal tense with lazy ease, are you the one who is actually positing all this bullshit? Are you implying that If Life On Other Planets Exists, We Must Have Known About It By Now? Are you that short-sighted, that narrow-minded?

You’re sort of coming back to me now, Celine. Most of that paragraph made sense. But then, those last two sentences confuse. It’s not correct to say that in all probability life exists on other planets? When, in all probability, it does?

Aarrgh. You have utterly failed logic, Brian. Utterly. There is, by statistics, as has already been explained to you, a very strong case for extraterrestrial life. This logical assertion of yours is unfounded bullshit.

Whatever, dude. I’m so totally more cynical about like, everything than you are.

Someone never saw 2001. Or AI. I’ll also add, quietly so as not to make you feel too stupid, that most films and TV shows occur in the present or near future. You’re the expert, can’t you see how how easier it is to relate to things from your own time period?

TOTALLY FLAMED JOO DENNY!

Wait, I’m not done, you posted again.

Absolutely nobody in this thread said that, Brian. Stop bullshitting. You can bore everyone else into firing back generalized answers because they’d rather not waste the time attacking your nonsense points line by line, BUT I HAVE THAT TIME, BUDDY.

Nobody said we shouldn’t travel through space, either. Who the hell are you arguing with? It isn’t anyone here.

Great image Denny. It really drives home just how insignificant we are in the greater scheme of things.

I am sure there is/was intelligent life out there somewhere in the universe but given the vast distances involved we will probably never have contact with any other sentient race.

We are truly lucky to have such a wondrous little spaceship called Planet Earth. It’s a shame the majority of the species called homo sapiens are barely capable of appreciating that.

But there aren’t a lot of races in SG-1 (that they have met). Most of the humans are spread out by other races and are basically the same (biologically). And they don’t know what is on each planet, so they go there and find out…and there are LOTS of em. Maybe they need the picture…then they could just sigh and give up on exploring the universe.