Yet something that never-endingly (is that a word? ) grows can be considered infinite, can it not?
No. Just because something can grow mindblowingly large does not make it infinite at any given point in time.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 04:42 AM
Yet something that never-endingly (is that a word? ) grows can be considered infinite, can it not?
Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:24 AM
Yet something that never-endingly (is that a word? ) grows can be considered infinite, can it not?
Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:52 AM
What Nymh said. Also, the universe is eventually going to end in some way or another.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 06:34 PM
But that doesn't make it non-infinite, either.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 06:44 PM
Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:19 PM
There are around 200 billion stars in our galaxy and 200 billion galaxies in the universe.
Conservatively we can say that each star in our galaxy only contains 1 orbiting planet, our solar system has 9, we would have 200 billion planets in our galaxy..
Now we can assume other galaxies have similar makeup, this brings the total of potential life harboring planets to only 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Now we can state that only 1 out of every 1 million planets contains some form of life, probably it is in the simplest form. That will lower us to only 40,000,000,000,000,000 planets with life.
Now we can state that only 1 out of every 1 billion planets with life has intelligent life with technology similar to or more advanced than ours. This would be only 40 million planets with sentient life in our universe.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:41 PM
Edited by Ivysaur, 13 September 2012 - 07:43 PM.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:43 PM
Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:48 PM
So, where are they. Your theory does not seem to fit observation. Or, they somehow ate all the lithium.
Edited by Ivysaur, 13 September 2012 - 07:48 PM.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:55 PM
Edited by coltom, 13 September 2012 - 07:56 PM.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:57 PM
Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:02 PM
Ramjets with fusion, certainly less than a million years the whole universe could have been explored by an elder civilization. Why they wouldn't have colonize, well, that is anyone's speculation.
Smarter than us, what a lack of understanding. We're already on the brink of our machines becoming smarter than us, the combination of machine and mind will, unless society falls, produced things we can't comprehend.
Anyone that thinks we can't be smarter, does not think. Anyone that does not think that aliens with a million years of civilization, or ten million have not thought of some new things, does not think.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:07 PM
Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:10 PM
Your theory is based on the assumptions that a) intelligent life does indeed exist and b) They have been around significantly longer then we have and c) they have developed technology capable of interstellar travel.
That's 3 variables.
Safest bet is to say that life exists elsewhere but has not developed the technology to even communicate with us.
But hey, to each their own.
Edited by destruct, 13 September 2012 - 08:20 PM.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:14 PM
No, "they" said it was just a test of the patriot missile system, even though why would you test a secret system when people could see the vapor trails? Oh, because "they" said so.
Ivy, given the age of the universe, given Asimov's postulate, you really think we're the first and brightest. .,.,.,.
Oh sweet Creator, there is no intelligent life on this planet.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:16 PM
is as idiotic as Coltom's argument
Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:19 PM
Ahem, I've not made an argument, I'm simply pointing out the observations, as many other science fiction writer before me has pondered. Bayesian probability, given that we exist, makes it certain that others exist.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:21 PM
Your theory is based on the assumptions that a) intelligent life does indeed exist and b) They have been around significantly longer then we have and c) they have developed technology capable of interstellar travel.
That's 3 variables.
Safest bet is to say that life exists elsewhere but has not developed the technology to even communicate with us.
But hey, to each their own.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:22 PM
*sigh*
I don't think we are the brightest coltom.
Another alien civilization may very well be smarter then us and not have developed interstellar travel.
You continue to based your "theories" on assumptions based on assumptions.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:24 PM
Way to type random numbers that prove absolutely nothing.Random crap
Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:27 PM
Way to type random numbers that prove absolutely nothing.
Ivysaur, your theory has just as many ifs as coltom's and it's just as retarded.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:36 PM
Numbers are how we make theories.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:52 PM
Theories are generated through lots of observance and trial, not just random numbers.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 09:15 PM
I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a safe bet. The premise you're operating around (they're not as intelligent as we are/haven't developed the technology) is as "idiotic" as Coltom's argument is because we just simply don't know. With that being said, I believe in extraterrestrial life forms, and I do believe we have been visited.
Ivysaur, your theory has just as many ifs as coltom's and it's just as retarded.
Life on another planet does NOT necessarily have to be multicellular coltom.Yet didn't you say above this post that "Life exists elsewhere? Probable.
As intelligent/more intelligent then us? Unlikely.
Visited us? Lolno. "
So you did say we were the most intelligent, now you say we are not. Oh, by the spectre of Harry Mudd this is confusing.
Tell you what, I'm bored with entering into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, since you can argue both sides of the issue, why don't you continue and tell us which sides wins.
Posted 13 September 2012 - 09:56 PM
Not numbers you got by closing your eyes and hitting keys.Numbers are how we make theories.
Other planets with sentient life forms are also extremely unlikely, yet you didn't discard the possibility.I based my argument on the fact that any civilization developing the technology to travel 270K au and said civillization finding us is extremely unlikely.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users