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.

 

Life in the Universe

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I was thinking today in a very linear fashion regarding the nature of time and the Big Bang theory, I was also thinking about what was observable such as the expanding "universe" and the progression of time as we perceive it.

The LHC is yet to provide us with evidence of "multiverse" which is not observable beyond beyond the chalk-board at the moment, even so we do not know if other universes exist and we only observe the redshift which provides evidence of an expanding universe, the one we happen to live in.

Regardless, if the universe as we know it was created in a Big Bang from nothingness or if God did it, or even if God created the Big Bang, one thing we can agree upon using scientific observation is that the universe is expanding and time is progressing away from a source.

I was thinking about all life too, since we are stardust afterall... our atoms being created in the heart of the stars and our essence being flung out into and through space during supernova, but I was thinking about life and time and life elsewhere in the universe, how it could relate to each other also and why we have not discovered what we call intelligent life if indeed there was a point of origin when all matter came into existence.

If all matter came into existence at the same time regardless of God did it out of the nothingness or not, or it just happened, then we can apply other scientific and observed theories such as evolution to this principle...

Maybe we have not found intelligent life elsewhere in the universe yet because all life is evolving/progressing at the same rate and according to the laws of physics, which exist through-out our known and one observable "universe" life out there simple has not got there yet either just as we have not developed a means of travel between the stars yet.

Could it be because the laws of physics dictate the way in which life evolves ? and that if we do find life out there or it find us, I think it would be very similar to what we see and have here on earth...

Life on earth is one observable fact in which the way life can arise and using the mathematics by way of which we calculate how many other planets must be out there with intelligent life on them, what is to say this life has not arisen just like ours ? being a perfect certain distance form their nearest star and having a moon or another object producing winds and tides and even a magnetic field form the planets core providing protection from solar winds and cosmic radiation.

I believe if we do find life out there one day, it is possible it could be very much like our own here on earth, afterall life on earth proves this is one possible way in which the perfect combonations give rise to life and where there is "one way" in the vast boundless universe as we know it, there has to be millions of ways very similar.

I hope one day we find eachother so we can ask them that age old question... Why?




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


I find this theory quite interesting. Also, in a way, this is something that I have been thinking about lately. I do think it is very plausible that there could be other Universes, but who are we to draw the boundary line? Is there even a boundary? With so little that we actually know, would it not be possible for another Universe which is not connected to ours?

I'm not sure I agree with this.


one thing we can agree upon using scientific observation is that the universe is expanding and time is progressing away from a source.

Is it actually expanding, or is it only because our technology is allowing us to view farther?




Maybe we have not found intelligent life elsewhere in the universe yet because all life is evolving/progressing at the same rate and according to the laws of physics,

That could of been a starting point, but one thing that you may not have thought about pertaining to this is about previous global extinctions on Earth. For example, if there was another world extremely similar to our Earth, the natural global occurrences most likely would not be exactly the same. Not only the natural events on the planet itself, but also cosmic phenomenon such as meteors, comets, supernovas, etc.

It is still nice to think that there could be a nearly identical world that has evolved in this same way as us. I just think with so many other factors, it would most likely not have been on the same time-line. They could even be behind us as far as technology is concerned.

Those are just my thoughts.



I hope one day we find each other so we can ask them that age old question... Why?

Sorry. I just had to share this. Immediately upon reading this statement, I pictured a meeting between us and them, with them being extremely similar to us. After the initial "hello's," and "we mean you no harm," you ask that question. The response they give you is, "You've got to be kidding me. So you really don't know either? That is the only reason we came here. We thought you could tell us."



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Man if you don't know WHY. You got some experiencing to do. Hurry before it's too late...and no I will not be the one to do your figuring out for you; the anwsers are in life you just got to be lookin them.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
thanks, I came up with this all spur of the moment like after watching some Carl Sagan clip and remembering which part of the series Cosmos that it was in... I added a bit of fudge of my own thoughts to it too, mainly the time-line and evolution thingy.


Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


I find this theory quite interesting. Also, in a way, this is something that I have been thinking about lately. I do think it is very plausible that there could be other Universes, but who are we to draw the boundary line? Is there even a boundary? With so little that we actually know, would it not be possible for another Universe which is not connected to ours?
I think we only fabricate what is not observable and tangible.



I'm not sure I agree with this.
Is it actually expanding, or is it only because our technology is allowing us to view farther?
well we have Hubble's Law to account for this, but what if we add the Big Bang "theory" to this ? would it suggest a point of origin for the singularity ? or did Hubble's Law actually give rise to the big-bang theory itself ?
Hubble's "Law" - 1929
big bang idea during a BBC Radio broadcast in March 1949

Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the inferred recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the Universe.[17] In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion in forward time required that the Universe contracted backwards in time, and would continue to do so until it could contract no further, bringing all the mass of the Universe into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space comes into existence
en.wikipedia.org...
very interesting that some of the best theoretical thinkers always used to be and include the spiritual like Newton, Aquinas, and the list goes on... but now we are in a dull stale period where cosmology is collapsing in on itself, will we reach the next paradigm ?


That could of been a starting point, but one thing that you may not have thought about pertaining to this is about previous global extinctions on Earth. For example, if there was another world extremely similar to our Earth, the natural global occurrences most likely would not be exactly the same. Not only the natural events on the planet itself, but also cosmic phenomenon such as meteors, comets, supernovas, etc.
this is a very good point which I did not factor in... but also math can be used here too (since we are all that we know and have a basis point of reference from really) what is to say these other worlds that were just right and life has/had arisen had to go through the same exact processes that intelligent life did here to arise. This is a bit hard for me to try to explain except other than "exactly like the way earth has given rise to intelligent life here" what are the odds ?


It is still nice to think that there could be a nearly identical world that has evolved in this same way as us. I just think with so many other factors,
but there are odds of this correct ?


Those are just my thoughts.

Sorry. I just had to share this. Immediately upon reading this statement, I pictured a meeting between us and them, with them being extremely similar to us. After the initial "hello's," and "we mean you no harm," you ask that question. The response they give you is, "You've got to be kidding me. So you really don't know either? That is the only reason we came here. We thought you could tell us."
haha good point, kinda like more Sagan in his novel/movie "Contact"

I admire Sagan and alot of others... I just do not understand the recent division and departure if you get my drift...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by agentofchaos
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Man if you don't know WHY. You got some experiencing to do. Hurry before it's too late...and no I will not be the one to do your figuring out for you; the anwsers are in life you just got to be lookin them.
I think theoretical physics is only trying to gain a better understanding of ourselves, actually for those who can not understand the plain and simple truth already.

it is a limited few, they have developed their own language based on symbolism to try to explain it and describe something others already know... sad thing is now and since the open division being broadcast all over the place, I doubt people ever will because it does not include them... their language is only for the non-spiritual and you will be excluded or not accepted if one is spiritual.

TOE = Love

plain and simple... time is short !



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Great thread! The question of life out there in the universe or multiverses is something I ponder frequently. I think your thoughts about the rate of evolution, technological advances, and the Laws of Physics affecting the possibility of contact with whoever might be out there, are right on target. Carl Sagan, the famous astrobiologist, and Stephen Hawking, the theoretical physicist, would also agree with you!

Sagan wrote Contact, a novel about the question of intelligent life in outer space, which was made into a movie starring Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey. The movie is one of my all time favorites and was the spark that got me interested in physics and astronomy. If you've never seen it, put it on your list! There is a line in the movie that goes (I'm paraphrasing) "If there isn't other intelligent life out there, it sure would be an awful waste of space". Love that!

I believe there has to be other intelligent life out there. Statistically speaking, it's almost a sure thing. Like you say, the big question is, are they advanced enough to hear us reaching out to them via projects like SETI, and if they are reaching out to us, will we be able to hear and understand them? One of my deepest hopes is to be alive when some sort of first contact is made. What a beautiful thing it will be to witness, because it will quickly dawn on us that we on this planet are a very small part of a much larger existence. At that moment, our collective Earthly frame of reference will expand exponentially, very suddenly, compelling us to put aside the things that divide us, like borders, languages, cultures and religions. We will abruptly find that it is no longer fitting for us to define ourselves and each other using words like light or dark skinned, Ethiopian or Canadian, Muslim or Christian. At that moment, we will realize we are Earthlings. Just thinking about it makes me smile.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 



Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I was thinking today in a very linear fashion regarding the nature of time and the Big Bang theory, I was also thinking about what was observable such as the expanding "universe" and the progression of time as we perceive it.


Uh huh...go on...



The LHC is yet to provide us with evidence of "multiverse" which is not observable beyond beyond the chalk-board at the moment, even so we do not know if other universes exist and we only observe the redshift which provides evidence of an expanding universe, the one we happen to live in.


The LHC or any other CERN experiment that I'm aware of has nothing to do with the multiverse at the moment. The idea of a multiverse is still in its infant stages and ways to test the idea are being devised.

Just so you can inform yourself, here are some resources on the experiments that CERN is currently running and has already completed. Here's another resource. Here's the wikipedia entry.



Regardless, if the universe as we know it was created in a Big Bang from nothingness or if God did it, or even if God created the Big Bang, one thing we can agree upon using scientific observation is that the universe is expanding and time is progressing away from a source.


...the alternatives aren't "God" or "nothingness". Nobody is perpetuating the idea of the universe arising naturally from "nothingness", but from previously existing material.



I was thinking about all life too, since we are stardust afterall... our atoms being created in the heart of the stars and our essence being flung out into and through space during supernova, but I was thinking about life and time and life elsewhere in the universe, how it could relate to each other also and why we have not discovered what we call intelligent life if indeed there was a point of origin when all matter came into existence.


Um...a point of origin doesn't necessarily mean that intelligent life will arise. Hell, not even evolution necessarily requires the rise of intelligent life.



If all matter came into existence at the same time regardless of God did it out of the nothingness or not, or it just happened, then we can apply other scientific and observed theories such as evolution to this principle...


...again with the nothingness idea. Nobody is saying it came from nothingness.



Maybe we have not found intelligent life elsewhere in the universe yet because all life is evolving/progressing at the same rate and according to the laws of physics, which exist through-out our known and one observable "universe" life out there simple has not got there yet either just as we have not developed a means of travel between the stars yet.


...or we could just go with the other options. Like maybe we cannot communicate with other intelligent life because it's really far away. Maybe intelligence doesn't evolve very often. Maybe intelligent life developed elsewhere in a form we cannot recognize.



Could it be because the laws of physics dictate the way in which life evolves ? and that if we do find life out there or it find us, I think it would be very similar to what we see and have here on earth...


I honestly doubt it. Environment plays a large role in evolution, and Earth's environments might be incredibly different from what is found on other planets. Hell, we might not even be able to classify life on other planets in the same kingdoms we classify life on Earth.



Life on earth is one observable fact in which the way life can arise and using the mathematics by way of which we calculate how many other planets must be out there with intelligent life on them, what is to say this life has not arisen just like ours ?


Because they'd have a different starting point and different conditions. It's like Legos. Sure, you're using the same little blocks, but two people starting out with the same sets can come up with radically different creations.



being a perfect certain distance form their nearest star and having a moon or another object producing winds and tides and even a magnetic field form the planets core providing protection from solar winds and cosmic radiation.


Just a few corrections: Difference in air temperature causes winds, not the moon. We also aren't a perfect distance from our star, there is actually a range of distances we could inhabit and still happen upon life. Hell, life is tenacious, it might arise in situations we haven't even thought of. I'm sure the life living in thermal vents doesn't care as much about the tides or the distance we are from our star.



I believe if we do find life out there one day, it is possible it could be very much like our own here on earth, afterall life on earth proves this is one possible way in which the perfect combonations give rise to life and where there is "one way" in the vast boundless universe as we know it, there has to be millions of ways very similar.


Or there could be millions of radically different ways.



I hope one day we find eachother so we can ask them that age old question... Why?


And maybe they'll just shrug their shoulders and go "Dunno"



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
When trying to learn something about cosmology and astronomy, my favorite source is Neil DeGrasse Tyson...he's brilliant at explaining things...

Does he believe in aliens??





What is intelligent life, and by who's standards do we measure intelligence?



Here's a somewhat long, but incredibly interesting panel discussing the cosmos (start at 15min):




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 



Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
I was thinking today in a very linear fashion regarding the nature of time and the Big Bang theory, I was also thinking about what was observable such as the expanding "universe" and the progression of time as we perceive it.


Uh huh...go on...



The LHC is yet to provide us with evidence of "multiverse" which is not observable beyond beyond the chalk-board at the moment, even so we do not know if other universes exist and we only observe the redshift which provides evidence of an expanding universe, the one we happen to live in.


The LHC or any other CERN experiment that I'm aware of has nothing to do with the multiverse


your lack of awareness of the facts are beyond me... therefore the foundation on which you stand and base the rest of your message on will only be your own self delusional rant in which you try to establish your personal philosophy.

we are dealing in fact and rationality in this particular topic, also a hint of cosmology... it is highly doubtful that I will read the rest of your post, that is until you recant and accept your ignorance of the facts.

very simply type in (multiverse+lhc) into google... though I warn you to observe other sources than Wiki alone.

thank you for your attempt at a lead in dialogue, it is quite expected you young sir Dawkins



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
When trying to learn something about cosmology and astronomy, my favorite source is Neil DeGrasse Tyson...he's brilliant at explaining things...

Does he believe in aliens?

Tyson is so cool... it doesn't matter if he believes in aliens, I believe in Intelligent life in the universe myself... well aliens are a different form of the unseen, which suggests that intelligent life is here and it is sinister, or they could be helping who knows.

one of my favorite video clips from Tyson is where he is more like Mike Tyson the boxer, he slams Dawkins so hard right in front of the scientific community I bet Dawkins went home nearly catatonic... crap man just the look on Dawkins' face says alot about his visit to his rebuttal and rebuke.

bet ole Mr Dawkins boy won't be forgetting that ? would you agree with the rationality of Dawkins response in this clip ? I doubt he even was expecting it...

here is the "last laugh" which is the loudest, listen closely...


edit on 2/7/2011 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


You should really do some research before attacking people


The most reputable source to find out what experiments are done at CERN is obviously their own website. They have a complete list of every single experiment...and guess what, not one relates to multiverses. Now, of course in the future they might do some experiments, but for now, there's none


Link

It's an interesting subject nonetheless, and might eventually do experiments regarding multiverses. But for now, there's a ton of more relevant stuff like finding out about dark matter for example (scheduled as RE18 test). Most of space is dark matter, yet we have no clue what it really is because it refuses to react with anything we use to measure/observe things.

By the way, there's an easy way to check the list for multiverse relevant material. Go read one of the most recent articles on multiverses, and pick the most relevant keywords (or formulas) that relate to it, an then CTRL+F the list of experiments. I went over the 25 most relevant keywords and got only 2 hits that related to something entirely different.
edit on 7-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Tyson will not even give the pompous snob the honor of saying his name !

that speaks volumes in itself



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


He's not really slamming him, or criticizing Dawkins' opinion...because if you watch his other videos you realize that his opinion matches that of Dawkins. He's merely criticizing the fact that Dawkins isn't being "nice" in telling people the truth...which makes him a bad educator...NOT a bad scientist!

Tyson's strength is being an educator, he has his own show (NOVA Science on PBS) and amazingly funny podcast called "Startalk Radio". Definitely worth downloading those podcasts. He also teaches at university and is the director of an observatory. So he's clearly a teacher...

Now, Dawkins isn't a teacher...he's more like a general scientist. He observes, finds evidence to back up his claims, and then brings that truth to the people. He's not gift-wrapping it like Tyson, but the content is pretty much the same.

There's a clip of Tyson somewhere where a student asks him if he believes in god...the answer is no



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


He's not really slamming him, or criticizing Dawkins' opinion...because if you watch his other videos you realize that his opinion matches that of Dawkins.


that's what is so damn funny wouldn't you say ?

co-existence mindset of the American educator and real man !

see even some Atheists are just cool as heck... they speak truth and have sensitivity and a heart, unlike UK's atheistic snobs.

did you realize who was Tyson's most influential man ? who he admired the most and thinks gave the most influence...

this is an admirable man...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Totally agree that Tyson's awesome in any way, spreading the truth and doing it in a very approachable way. Anyone claiming that man is a fool are ass deserves to get his ass kicked given what's he's doing for the country with his show...educating thousands of people every single week. The education level would be a lot higher if all teachers were like him...would make more people stop from making crazy 10k year old earth claims



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I have not even researched this but I wonder if Dawkins is a father ? I am going to now though...

though Tyson's words which he speaks about Newton is where Einstein's words about religion and science resonate with me... why should the Atheistic scientist seek to destroy that which asks the right questions ?

see now why I claim Evolution is just a footnote and boring as heck ? who even cares enough to doubt... it is an accepted "theory" and aspects of its observable to me are very true, still who give a rat's arse ? the bigger questions are elsewhere...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
things seem to have not worked out so well for Mr Dawkins, though I discover he had a child, I question the involvement and parenthood he experienced or gave...


Personal life On 19 August 1967, he married fellow ethologist Marian Stamp; they divorced in 1984. Later that same year, on 1 June, Dawkins married Eve Barham (19 August 1951–28 February 1999) in Oxford. They had a daughter, Juliet Emma Dawkins (born 1984, Oxford). Dawkins and Barham divorced; she died of cancer. In 1992, he married actress Lalla Ward[26] in Kensington and Chelsea, London. Dawkins met her through their mutual friend Douglas Adams,[27] who had worked with her on the BBC's Doctor Who.
en.wikipedia.org...

I hate to judge a mans manhood and stuff but the actions and methodology of his students and followers reflect, or say alot about a mans character... Like Darwin in a way eh?

on the other hand I will now rename Mr Tyson to a name more befitting and regardless because of his character...

I call this man "Father Tyson"



edit on 2/7/2011 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Tyson admires Newton solely based on his scientific accomplishments



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


You can't judge Dawkins based on his relationships...there's plenty of people getting divorces every single year, hell, in the US the divorce rate is past 45%


Attack the content of his claims all you want, but attacking him based on his persona is petty and doesn't add any more credibility to your opinions.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a little more "spooky" psychology 101 stuff, if you will...

However, he began to feel that the customs of the Church of England were absurd, and had more to do with dictating morals than with God. Later, when he better understood the process of evolution, his religious position again changed, because he felt that natural selection could account for the complexity of life in purely material terms, rendering a supernatural designer unnecessary.
richarddawkins.net...

so this man did not want to conform or live by moralistic values but instead invent his own set of laws and chose other means by which to define his personal and materialistic view of the world and what t should be for him, and personally ?

history has been where this man has and so has psychology...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join