It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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?
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!
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.
originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: wildespace
Here you go.. a real time lapse of a supernova over 4 years (by Hubble):
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Personally, I think Einsteins real genius was in his Quotes, not his math.