"My God! It's Full of Galaxies!

a reply to: Maverick7

all he said was that there is most likely life on other planets.
something you also demonstrated.
he said nothing about us meeting.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: wildespace


It's a very humbling thing to realise just how small and insignificant we really are in the vastness of space but it's also reassuring that there's probably others far far away thinking the same thing and looking back in the opposite direction

I see it the other way around, we are not small and insignificant, we are part of this magnificent creation, as integral to the creation as the galaxies themselves. I see us as gigantic in spirit and beautiful, and that something as big and wonderful as the universe has deemed us fit to be here to observe and participate in it.

a reply to: summerbreeze.ddp

Word!

Why see it as small just because we ARE, size-wise.
We are alive at this very point in time - in this glorious thing that we dub the Universe.
And our spirits and the very essence that is Us - which IS the universe having an experience of itself - will live on FOREVER -

because ENERGY CANNOT DIE!

Oh the wonders!

We are all BLESSED!

PEACE

a reply to: [post=20794932]alienDNA[/post

Your message was beautiful!!!

a reply to: Quantum12

Im glad you recieved it!
Much love to you - fellow shard of universe!

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: CornShucker

originally posted by: wildespace
I wonder if anyone is ever going to catalogue all these galaxies.

For $100, I'll name one for you or a relative and send you a freshly printed certificate of authenticity and a coupon good for 25% off the beautifully bound hardback of new listings for 2016 when available.

NOTICE & DISCLAIMER: The above is only TiC humor directed at the "Name a Star" scam that I am amazed is still allowed to remain in business.

I don't think there are enough words in the human language to give each galaxy a unique name, are there?

You're probably right. The folks I was poking fun at would hope so. That would mean their scam could continue indefinitely. I can't believe people will pay ($50?) them to "Name a Star." Those names are NOT official. That's a lot of money just for a star chart and a certificate.

a reply to: alienDNA

OK, if I inflated the topic, sorry.

However, this is also very vague. What does 'life on other planets' mean, really. Is a single celled amoeba on a planet in Andromeda enough to say 'there's life'?

I would say this. The possibility of some kind of single-celled or multicelled 'life' in our Solar System (oceans on Europa, for example), 100%. Probability of sentient life in our Solar System - very small but possible (again, oceans on Europa, under 100 km of ice with probable liquid water, talking 'smart octopi' like creatures), but we may never know for sure. Getting through 100km of ice is not easy.

Possibility that the MW Galaxy is FULL of microbial single celled life, or microorganisms, 100%, I'd stipulate.

Possibility that there are 'sentient' or higher forms, multi-cellular life in the M-W galaxy, could be very, very low, depending on how restrictive that 'great filter' is. It's entirely possible that we could be the only sentient forms in the MW galaxy and sheer 'numbers' of stars or planets is not an indication of probability. It's a function of:

1. How hard is it for one-celled forms to be created, and how long does it take?
2. Does evolution select for complex creatures? It does not seem to select for 'intelligence'. In that case we could be unique.

It does seem likely, knowing about extremophiles, that single celled organisms will form (somehow) if the components (C, H, O, N) are available as soon as conditions allow. But there's apparently a big jump required from single-celled to multi-celled organisms.

My premise is that it is not meaningful to just say 'life exists out there', and people are too vague. Do they mean 'life like us'? Because if they mean 'life' as in microbial, then how is that controversial. It's basically a given.

What IS controversial, after you get people to be clear and precise about what they're saying is that it's a big jump from one-celled to multicellular, another big jump from that to 'intelligent' life, a huge jump from that to 'sentient life' (self-aware) and a gigantic jump from sentient life to creatures that voyage through their local space.

It's another huge jump from local space-voyaging to intra-galactic voyaging, a huge jump from that to being 'visited' in current time by full-sized creatures in craft as people suggest.

So let's not 'blur' the topic and again, apologies if I jumped ahead.

a reply to: wildespace

Wow.. that last time lapse of the super nova was pretty incredible. That is the first time seeing any motion on such a large scale, and so far away.

I thought some other events that may be viewable on video is of galaxies colliding. They may be moving fast enough for it to be perceived, though it may be sad to think many civilizations are seeing their end.

a reply to: Maverick7

Cmon dude.
Stop it.
lets just enjoy the fact that there is MOST LIKELY some sort of life on other planets in this INCREDIBLY ANCIENT AND VAST UNIVERSE OF OURS.

Peace onto you my friend.
I love you.
Btw, Avatar is my absolute favorite movie. I cry every time.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Wow, thanks for sharing.

Who knows what is going on in that cup of tea when you stir it? Maybe entire civilizations will come and go before you drink it.

If you mean scary life that is deadly to humans, sure, you're free to enjoy that, but you're basically suspending disbelief.

My post is not to the 'dreamers' and lovers of Avatar, it's to those who post vague comments about "life" in the Universe, those who conflate the Drake Equation, those who think we are going to be saved be benevolent Vulcans, and those who don't treasure life here, in that we may be unique in all of space and time.

FWIW

my post is to those who have Avatar as their avatar.
I bring you love and peace.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
As much as I love the Hubble deep field images, I think, given the opportunity, the James Webb Telescope will increase the number of visible galaxies from the 100/150 billion mark to around 500 billion or more. The near future is looking bright!

Is that the massive array they are going to build in Australia?
Because listening to some experts on the subject of space and if they are correct that thing is going to blow our minds.

originally posted by: Maverick7
a reply to: alienDNA

OK, if I inflated the topic, sorry.

However, this is also very vague. What does 'life on other planets' mean, really. Is a single celled amoeba on a planet in Andromeda enough to say 'there's life'?

I would say this. The possibility of some kind of single-celled or multicelled 'life' in our Solar System (oceans on Europa, for example), 100%. Probability of sentient life in our Solar System - very small but possible (again, oceans on Europa, under 100 km of ice with probable liquid water, talking 'smart octopi' like creatures), but we may never know for sure. Getting through 100km of ice is not easy.

Possibility that the MW Galaxy is FULL of microbial single celled life, or microorganisms, 100%, I'd stipulate.

Possibility that there are 'sentient' or higher forms, multi-cellular life in the M-W galaxy, could be very, very low, depending on how restrictive that 'great filter' is. It's entirely possible that we could be the only sentient forms in the MW galaxy and sheer 'numbers' of stars or planets is not an indication of probability. It's a function of:

1. How hard is it for one-celled forms to be created, and how long does it take?
2. Does evolution select for complex creatures? It does not seem to select for 'intelligence'. In that case we could be unique.

It does seem likely, knowing about extremophiles, that single celled organisms will form (somehow) if the components (C, H, O, N) are available as soon as conditions allow. But there's apparently a big jump required from single-celled to multi-celled organisms.

My premise is that it is not meaningful to just say 'life exists out there', and people are too vague. Do they mean 'life like us'? Because if they mean 'life' as in microbial, then how is that controversial. It's basically a given.

What IS controversial, after you get people to be clear and precise about what they're saying is that it's a big jump from one-celled to multicellular, another big jump from that to 'intelligent' life, a huge jump from that to 'sentient life' (self-aware) and a gigantic jump from sentient life to creatures that voyage through their local space.

It's another huge jump from local space-voyaging to intra-galactic voyaging, a huge jump from that to being 'visited' in current time by full-sized creatures in craft as people suggest.

So let's not 'blur' the topic and again, apologies if I jumped ahead.

If we discovered single cell amoeba on another planet, that would be a major discovery.

The whole chain of Goldilocks parameters would be satisfied. A stable star, a planet in the comfort zone of not too warm, not too hot, stable atmosphere, climate, oceans, lakes and rivers. Availability of nutrients and minerals. Evolution of genes, DNA. What would the coding system be. Would the amino acids be the same as ours? Just to get a single cell organism functioning requires thousands of perfectly matched genes.

We're so small compared to the rest of the universe that statistically speaking, we don't even exist.

a reply to: wildespace

Here you go.. a real time lapse of a supernova over 4 years (by Hubble):

timelapse-of-a-supernova-explosion-over-four-years

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: wildespace

Here you go.. a real time lapse of a supernova over 4 years (by Hubble):

timelapse-of-a-supernova-explosion-over-four-years

Firstly, it wasn't a supernova, it was just an outburst of energy from a star, which is still there. Secondly, as cool as the video may look, I'm afraid the smoothness of the timelapse is due to them using image morphing techniques. The Hubble only got a handful of photos over the years, so the visual guys produced an illusion of smooth motion.

en.wikipedia.org...
hubblesite.org...

Another one of my favourite timelapses from the Hubble is the evolution of jets coming off a newborn star:

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: wildespace

Ah, Ok.

Whats interesting about all of this (not sure how to explain) is that it seems like we experience or perceive a different rate of time. Like a scaled size explosion on Earth would occur much faster. It is as though the explosion is occurring in slow motion (even though it is traversing light years).

In the other direction, if you watch a small insect run around, it can take hundreds of steps and make multiple decisions and do several things within just a matter of a couple of seconds. Maybe they perceive and experience more time, per our time due to their scale size.

Just like the original, this is beautiful. I love the cosmos, I love space. I feel VERY SORRY for anyone who doesn't care about space, or what is out there.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Personally, I think Einsteins real genius was in his Quotes, not his math.

I'm gonna take a guess here and assume you are unwilling or unable (most likely ) to show us all exactly how Einsteins maths are wrong?

And please don't say you didn't say that. It's very clear to all what you are implying.

Meanwhile..Einsteins equations will continue to be used day in day out for applications used by everyone; yes including you!