It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: intrptr
Whats "normal matter"?
originally posted by: intrptr
"Matter" is energy. Plenty of invisible to our eye 'energies' are known to exist because we invented instruments to detect them. Before we invented (discovered) radio we had no idea that energy 'bandwidth' even existed, despite it was all around and thru us.
Before we detected X-rays, Ultraviolet, Microwave, Infrared, these energies were also 'undiscovered'. That process of discovery is ongoing, can we presume no other energies exist outside our 'science' because we haven't detected them yet?
The stuff the average person and physicists currently call the everyday matter the we can interact with. I suppose "ordinary" matter (rather than "normal") is more of the term used by physicists.
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Yah, Rare Earth has two major sub categories:
1) Planets that can have life.
2) Planets that can have life, and it evolves into tool using intelligence.
I'll cover both in different threads.
I remember the look on a friend's face when we were talking about this one day. He stated:
"But every star has a goldilocks zone, it's just in a different place depending on the star."
My response was: "Yah....but not every star always has a planet that formed there in that zone."
The look on his face was priceless, as though it never occurred to him that a star might only have planets too close or too far.
There are SO many different things that can be talked about. Over the years I've been surprised at the lack of discussion on this in any depth here on ATS.
The galaxy itself has a goldilocks zone as well. Life would have a very hard time forming in the crowded area. The radiation in the center of a galaxy would kill off any life. There us a reason we are in the outskirts of our galaxy. We don't get hit with a lot with radiation or gravity from other stars. And we are not in the spiral arms which again would be disruptive.
This means we need a solar system not in the downtown area and not in the spiral arms but between them. This means easily 90 percent of our galaxy is hostile to life. Throw in other conditions and we very well could be the only sentient beings in our galaxy.
That's all fine, but again, I was talking about ordinary matter in our universe.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
That's all fine, but again, I was talking about ordinary matter in our universe.
Thats like saying I only want to focus on ice, not water or air.
We have to include all forms of matter in the discussion. "Ordinary" matter has to be put into quotes because matter is mostly empty space made of tiny invisible particles whizzing about so fast that the floor beneath our feet gives us the illusion of solidity., When in fact , the floor beneath our feet is not solid, at rest, or ordinary. At all.
Can a being from a universe of 2 spatial dimensional universe even exist in our 3 dimensional universe? What would it be made of, and would the stuff that it is made of be allowed to exist in our universe, given the laws of physics of our universe?
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: dragonridr
The biggest problem is if only one or two lifeforms in a galaxy the possibility of meeting another goes to near zero.
Because of the size of the universe, statistically speaking, we don't exist.
originally posted by: icewater
a reply to: eriktheawful
Allow me to play devils advocate. My theory is that the laws of probability stack up against life existing elsewhere in the universe. To understand this it would be helpful to understand how probability works. How the math works. Here is a minor example: What is the probability that I will catch a fish tomorrow when I go fishing? I usually do so let's say the probability is 70% or .7 . But it is not as simple as that. There are other factors. What if I oversleep and miss the best feeding time so assume there is a 80% chance I wake on time. Weather, availability of bait, will my boat start in the morning? How long can I stay? Etc. So, lets say there is a 70% (.7) chance the weather will be good. Let's say there is a 20% chance the bait shop will be out of the minnows I favor for bait (so that means there is a 80% (.8) chance I will have the appropriate bait. And there is a 10% chance my boat will not start in the morning (again that means a 90% chance it will so .9 is calculated in. And then the pure chance the fish are biting....50% (or .5). Now given these are the only factors involved with fish catching (they aren't, there are many many more but for simplicity sake assume these are the only factors. The calculation looks like this: .8 x .7 x .8 x .9 x.5 = .2016 probability at this moment I will be successful fishing tomorrow. Of course the calculation changes as each event happens or doesn't. If the bait availability drops to 0 then the end probability drops to 0 as well. If I get to the bait shop and the minnows are there the calculation changes to .8 x .7 x 1.0 x .9 x.5 =.252 .