ESR - Late night chat /slightly drunkard

<< Comment #1 @ 17:59 CDT, 18 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini

Given all the evidence available, any alien species on other planets would actually probably resemble "us".

<< Comment #3 @ 00:03 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #1

yeah? why do you think so?

<< Comment #4 @ 04:12 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #3

Loook around you?

The only planet that we know is capable of creating and maintaining life is this one. So it'll have to be a mimic world in the first place, then look at the amount of times that the same solutions are repeated in the evolution of species.

<< Comment #5 @ 05:38 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #4

We dont know much about universe, do we? We know only eight planets, one solar system.
You say that in the evolution, the same solutions are repeated, thats true, but you are thinking only Earth. Who knows what would happen on a planet with 4g and 70% of sulphur in the atmosphere?

<< Comment #6 @ 06:06 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #5

Re-read what I said, then re-think your life.

I don't base my opinions on pointless, random speculation with no practical application.

<< Comment #7 @ 06:27 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #6

you suck at astro troll

<< Comment #9 @ 06:56 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #7

Not really.

<< Comment #11 @ 07:02 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #9

The only planet that we know is capable of creating and maintaining life is this one.

yea

<< Comment #13 @ 07:08 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #11

It's called evidence.

<< Comment #15 @ 07:19 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #13

a car just passed by my window. I don't have any evidence for it tho. hence, it didn't happen.

<< Comment #16 @ 07:27 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #15

Except there is evidence of lots of cars passing by lots of windows all the time, which increases the probabilty that it could have occurred and therefore it very possibly could have happened.

There is no evidence to suggest other planets that are different to ours can support life.

<< Comment #17 @ 07:29 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #16

not in my room there isn't.

<< Comment #18 @ 07:33 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #17

You suck at "trolling" mate :(

<< Comment #19 @ 08:10 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #18

you suck at understanding.

<< Comment #21 @ 08:33 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #19

I understand fine thanks.

<< Comment #23 @ 09:02 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #21

sure champ

<< Comment #27 @ 10:16 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #16

Actually there are indications, don't know if I would call them evidence, though.

For example Bacteria live in the craziest places.
They just found some that live solely on sulphate ions. http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009...eneath.php

<< Comment #29 @ 10:20 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #27

Yeah, they live in crazy places and is certainly an idication it could be possible but they are still on this planet. Did that environment create that bacteria, or has it just adjusted to that environment? etc.

The most likely case at the moment would still be planets like our own, and evolutionary solutions like this planets.

<< Comment #30 @ 10:31 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #29

yes, agree.

And even if they had evolved on their own it is very unlikely they would ever involve into a higher lifeform.
But still, that life in any form does exist on other planets or moons seems to be higher than people thought maybe 10 years ago.

<< Comment #31 @ 10:38 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #30

That looks a pretty cool blog too!

<< Comment #32 @ 10:40 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #31

Yeah it does actually. Though i gotta admit I don't follow it, jsut googled it to give a link.
The article read was in print and German :)

<< Comment #33 @ 10:41 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #32

Nice :D

<< Comment #71 @ 11:12 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #27

check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus

<< Comment #73 @ 14:33 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

[mash] - Reply to #71

interesting stuff!

<< Comment #74 @ 15:22 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #73

omelet anyone? :)

<< Comment #8 @ 06:38 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #6

I see what you were up to :/
whatever

<< Comment #10 @ 07:00 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #8

No, you don't. If you can go and find me a planet that has 4g and 70% of sulphur in the atmosphere that has life on it then I'm more than happy to revise my opinion on the matter.

Sadly for you, all the evidence suggests that for a planet to create/maintain life it needs to be more or less exactly the same as this planet. Since life on this planet repeats solutions over and over again it's very likely to be the same on other planets capable of creating and maintaining life.

What you're saying is basically the same as saying, "what if gravity didn't exist, the whole universe would be totally different!"

Edited by iniiiiiiii at 07:02 CDT, 19 April 2009

<< Comment #12 @ 07:04 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

GreenBastard - Reply to #10

even if an alien planet was identical to earth and their evolution followed exactly the same path as ours, it would be extremely unlikely we would be make contact with a species anywhere near the same evolutionary step as us, they could be at the Amoeba stage or 100 million years ahead of us

~1 million years in for the total time of homo-sapien existence is just a minuscule fraction of the ~4billion years that life has existed on earth

so chances are they would probably not resemble us at all

<< Comment #14 @ 07:17 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #12

When I said "us" I meant life on this planet, as in everything from the simplest form of life to us.

When I said resemble I meant have the same general characteristics. I find it very unlikely that an entire planet would would have evolved out of the prevailing characteristics we see on this planet repeated over and over and even then I expect it would only be adaptations of what we currently see (more/less fingers/toes/limbs/eyes).

The crocodile for example has barely changed for about 200million years.

<< Comment #22 @ 08:49 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #10

"All the evidence suggests..."
Ok, provide that evidence here, cause I doubt you can find anything that says that organic life can evolve only on planets with more or less exactly: 1g, 1 moon, 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, G-type star etc. etc.
Also, I dont think that what if gravity is higher = what if gravity didnt exist :)
Oh and btw, because I cant go and find you that planet doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

<< Comment #24 @ 09:11 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #22

Here is the evidence:
- This planet has life
- Other known planets do not have life (as far as we can tell)
- Other known planets have different structures/situations to this planet

Therefore the evidence suggests that in order to create and maintain life other planets would be required to be very similar to ours in structure and situation.

It's certainly possible that other planets could create and maintain life but given the evidence available it is unlikely. If and when evidence of other planets being capable of supporting life arises this idea will be revised and take into account that new evidence.

With my other point I was trying to get across to you that you're arguing based on "What if?" with no evidence which is for the realm of religion and spirituality.

Edited by iniiiiiiii at 09:15 CDT, 19 April 2009

<< Comment #25 @ 09:44 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #24

By evidence, I meant some scientific evidence, not your personal opinion.
No theory is 100% certain, thats one of the main principles in science.
You thinking my points are based in the realm of religion only proves you dont get that at all.
gg

<< Comment #26 @ 10:07 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #25

It's not my job to filter through all the detailed reports on all the known planets trying to find evidence of life which isn't there when they've already been looked at in detail by experts and revealed no indications of other planets having life.

It is perfectly scientific to look at our planet, then look at information and conclusions by experts on other planets and coming to the conclusion that given all the evidence available only planets similar to our own can create and support life.

Since I made it quite clear that I was basing my opinion on all the evidence available I think I made it quite clear I wasn't stating it was 100% certain and I even stated I'm quite willing to change my opinion providing evidence is shown.

I didn't say your points were based in the realm of religion, I said "What if?" questions with no evidence is for the realm of religion.

<< Comment #56 @ 07:46 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #26

just to put your "evidence" into perspective:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_known_plan...e_universe

"Astronomers estimate there are 10^22 to 10^24 stars in the universe. With a conservative estimate of three planets per star (some could have many more, some would have none at all) this puts the estimated number of planets into millions of billions. "
...
"so far, we know of the 8 main planets of the solar system, a handful of dwarf planets (including Ceres, Pluto, Sedna, Eris, and a few others) and, as of today (November 10, 2008), 322 extra-solar planets."

more precisely that means there is at least 3000000000000000000000 planets in the universe

there's about 350 planets that we actually know anything about or 000000000000000000000.1 % or the total number of planets. it is perfectly scientific to take a 000000000000000000000.1% sample and make informed conclusions and universal laws about the whole. yes sir, totally scientific.

<< Comment #57 @ 07:54 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #56

If that is all that is available it's perfectly scientific to do so and such views can only then be changed upon new evidence suggesting otherwise.

It's especially fine to do so when you say that it's only based on the evidence available.

<< Comment #58 @ 08:06 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #57

I just saw some guy take a booger out of his nose. snot being about 000000.1 % of that guys actual mass I conclude (with great confidence using ini's statistical model) that his entire body is made of booger. it's perfectly scientific.

<< Comment #59 @ 08:28 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #58

You have other evidence available to you to disproove that opinion.

You can't base theories on the assumption evidence might exist that disprooves it, so it must be wrong. Instead you make decisions based on all the available evidence and revise the theory when new evidence comes up.

<< Comment #60 @ 08:32 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #59

nope. I only have the booger.

btw, I think a car just went down by my window. :)

<< Comment #61 @ 08:51 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #60

Neither of those examples works.

There is a great deal of evidence available through studies on the human body that has been gathered over hundreds of years. Even if there wasn't just looking at someone would be enough to proove that his entire body wasn't entirely made up of boogers.

You made the claim about a car, then provide no evidence. So you either have evidence (You saw/heard or there is other evidence) or you just made it up entirely. Either way this is different because you are making a claim then not supporting the claim with any evidence.

While the sample size used for evidence is important, a small sample size is only most inappropriate when there is enough data to have a bigger sample size. This is not the case with planets since we just don't have that available, therefore the theory is incomplete but it's still the most likely case given the evidence available.

<< Comment #62 @ 08:57 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #61

^^

<< Comment #63 @ 09:12 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #62

:D

<< Comment #64 @ 09:28 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #63

sry couldn't reply at that time but found your post amusing

here we go:

"There is a great deal of evidence available through studies on the human body that has been gathered over hundreds of years. Even if there wasn't just looking at someone would be enough to proove that his entire body wasn't entirely made up of boogers."

not if all you have is the booger and the body is lightyears away.

"You made the claim about a car, then provide no evidence. So you either have evidence (You saw/heard or there is other evidence) or you just made it up entirely. Either way this is different because you are making a claim then not supporting the claim with any evidence."

the fact that I don't have any evidence in my room that a car passed by my window, makes a car passing by my window an impossibility.

I seriously couldn't put it more obvious than this, if you don't get it this time I give up.

<< Comment #65 @ 09:54 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #64

No, because you still have your body or have seen a body to know it came from one. If not then all you have is a booger which isn't evidence of anything except that a booger exists.

It doesn't make it an impossibility it makes it improbable. How improbable would be based on factors such as "is there a road there", do cars ever pass by, do cars even exist etc.

Edited by iniiiiiiii at 10:01 CDT, 20 April 2009

<< Comment #67 @ 10:08 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #65

sigh

<< Comment #68 @ 10:17 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #67

sigh

<< Comment #69 @ 10:29 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

hnns - Reply to #64

the fact that I don't have any evidence in my room that a car passed by my window, makes a car passing by my window an impossibility.

how about no?

<< Comment #70 @ 10:43 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #69

yea I totally said that

<< Comment #50 @ 18:37 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ddk - Reply to #10

i'm surprised noone has so far even mentioned water!

i'll say now that i don't know anything really on this subject! but the reason why these scientists or people at NASA make such a _massive_ deal about finding out whether a planet had water is because of waters somewhat unique or wondrous properties. they recently found underground markers or signs that illustrate that mars had some rivers or something similar not too long ago i believe.

without water our planet wouldn't be able to sustain any life. there's something to do with the chemical structure of water that allows itself to climb up the xylem in plant life to then enable the process of photosynthesis. in this the water is actually defying the force of gravity.

i know extremely little, that's about all i know and it's probably completely wrong. but i've the feeling that all this speculation without any real research or reading is leading to a stagnant discussion!

<< Comment #51 @ 18:46 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #50

It doesn't require any research here since there is only the Earth known to create/support life and there is a possibility that one other planet (That Erok mentioned) and maybe a couple more I haven't read about could have this capability.

Anything else is either Earth based implication (Like Becks' post) or pure speculation (Like Valvalis' post).

You're right about the water stuff of course, it's why they only look at planets within certain distances from stars when looking for planets that could support life, too hot and you vaporize water, too cold and it freezes.

<< Comment #46 @ 17:26 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

erok - Reply to #4

Thought they recently found one that had conditions to support life(far as fuck away, and life similar to our planet's)

<< Comment #47 @ 17:34 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #46

Do you mean a planet similar to our own?

I've not seen/heard/read anything about that so if it's true I'd be interested to see it!

Edited by iniiiiiiii at 17:34 CDT, 19 April 2009

<< Comment #48 @ 17:45 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

erok - Reply to #47

Ok I am mistaken, we don't have the technology to tell for sure, but apparently it COULD have the necessary conditions to harbor life, its about 20 light years away. here is one link but there are many more
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070424_hab_exoplanet.html

<< Comment #49 @ 17:59 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #48

Ah, 2007!

I had heard about that one, though only a very brief mention. It'll be interestng to see how this story develops.

<< Comment #52 @ 18:52 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

erok - Reply to #49

Yea it will be, though I don't think we'll see any major developments on this for at least another 20-30 years

<< Comment #53 @ 18:54 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #52

I was planning on moving planets before that :(

<< Comment #54 @ 22:05 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

erok - Reply to #53

Ye, Earth vs Mars quake matches !!!

<< Comment #55 @ 04:11 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

thelawenforcer ' - Reply to #48

it could be just a barren world, sort of like the moon.

we will know when a mission goes up that will have the ability to do a spectroscopic analysis (which i think isnt the 20-30 years off as u predict). The kepler mission will more than likely uncover ~50 earth sized planets, the next planet hunting mission will be an interferometer designed to check any atmospheres for high levels of oxygen mainly. it should go up in about 5 years or so. im probably wrong about that as i havent really heard much about a follow up mission for a while. its a safe bet though that studying these new exoplanets in detail will be the focus of any new space instruments to go up in the next 15 years.

Edited by thelawenforcer at 04:13 CDT, 20 April 2009

<< Comment #72 @ 14:26 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

erok - Reply to #55

O cool. I am extremely uneducated about the subject so I'm not surprised my guess was wrong, glad to know it will be sooner :)

<< Comment #75 @ 17:58 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

thelawenforcer ' - Reply to #72

i might be wrong in my estimate though, likely hood is though that the first concrete evidence of life outside our solar system will be found fairly soon, within our lifetimes probably.

next step, an interstellar probe :D

<< Comment #76 @ 19:34 CDT, 20 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #75

You really think so?

I'm not at all convinced it will happen within my life time.

<< Comment #2 @ 18:02 CDT, 18 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

raithza

,,,

<< Comment #20 @ 08:24 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Aaron

I thought the Mayans / chinese were the first civilised race
when it comes to religion, I base my thoughts on facts
dont have any "faith" into anything I dont know

lol?

<< Comment #43 @ 16:49 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

brz - Reply to #20

egypt

<< Comment #28 @ 10:19 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

somebodyshootme '

I doubt we would even notice if aliens came here.
edit:didnt mean to reply to anyone

Edited by somebodyshootme at 10:19 CDT, 19 April 2009

<< Comment #34 @ 15:34 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Liam

Wait, what?

Somebody actually fucking read this? What's wrong with you people, he's never said anything even remotely interesting the whole time he's been on this site and you want to read stuff where he has even less time to think about it?

12%

<< Comment #35 @ 15:41 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Six16 - Reply to #34

I dont post journals for your enjoyment, now fo and die.

<< Comment #37 @ 16:05 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #35

Why did you link that Iron statue clip in there?

Glad you did since I went and watched the whole program but it didn't seem to go with any point you made!

<< Comment #38 @ 16:17 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Six16 - Reply to #37

my name is Tom, not Rob

<< Comment #39 @ 16:19 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #38

D:

You know, I honestly read through that and I couldn't decide which of you was more dumb :((((

<< Comment #40 @ 16:29 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Six16 - Reply to #39

I was talking mostly gash as i was drunk, Rob on the other hand im not so sure about!

Also, having read some of your comments above, i would not be commenting on intelligence.

<< Comment #41 @ 16:41 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #40

Did you not understand the rather simple and obvious concept either?

<< Comment #42 @ 16:45 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Six16 - Reply to #41

I get what your saying, i just think your wrong.

<< Comment #45 @ 16:52 CDT, 19 April 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)