[Redneck]

Imagine the particles that make up our physical world. Floating around, held together by some unseen magical force. Individually they do not constitute an organism, but together; voilà, you have a sentient being.
Now, imagine our planets floating around held together by some unseen magical force. Individually they make up our solar system, but together they make up universe.
Imagine if we could back away from the universe with a wide angle view what we might see!!!

[MB.]

What you would see would be other parts of the universe. Eventually the universe would (probably) flatten out and you would see the superstructure which looks like this: . Although you probably wouldn't be able to "see" this since I imagine the light traveling with you would become so red shifted that it would possibly require microwave vision or something. This could go on infinitely or it would stop at some point. Anyway, you would have to be traveling close to the speed of light to experience this and at that point while you may not be aging the universe would become billions of years older and possibly fly to pieces from dark energy, or if the Higgs Boson undergoes a phase transition. Due to relativistic effects this is why it would be possible to travel between stars at extremely high velocities in relatively short times (for you), although not possible to return to your place of origin.

[youtube]JQnka2wNa_M[/youtube]

[Redneck]

Or what might come into focus could be the smallest part of a larger object.
Maybe there are entire worlds of "people" living on the atoms within us. Open your mind to the possibilities. That's what science is truly about.

[Potemkin]

Maybe there are entire worlds of "people" living on the atoms within us. Open your mind to the possibilities. That's what science is truly about.

No there aren't. The laws of physics are not scale invariant.

[mikema63]

Open your mind to the impossible pote! That's what science is all about!

You should read more depok Chopra!

[Nonsense]

[quote="MB."]Actually there is no such prerequisite for human analog technological development. Panspermia theory and recent studies on microorganism suggest that life can survive solar radiation and cold soaking in space.

Of course, 'life' (Extremophiles)can survive in the extremes of space, but NOT 'intelligent' life able to control it's environment ,extremophile like life survives such conditions, but, in such conditions, life tends to specialise
& should those conditions change markedly then the ability to survive decreases.

'Life' formed on terra firma with the right climate has many advantages, once it has adapted.

[Nonsense]

But what if Aliens are Muslims?

There's no 'if' about it, they are 'aliens'.

[Nonsense]

What you would see would be other parts of the universe. Eventually the universe would (probably) flatten out and you would see the superstructure which looks like this: . Although you probably wouldn't be able to "see" this since I imagine the light traveling with you would become so red shifted that it would possibly require microwave vision or something. This could go on infinitely or it would stop at some point. Anyway, you would have to be traveling close to the speed of light to experience this and at that point while you may not be aging the universe would become billions of years older and possibly fly to pieces from dark energy, or if the Higgs Boson undergoes a phase transition. Due to relativistic effects this is why it would be possible to travel between stars at extremely high velocities in relatively short times (for you), although not possible to return to your place of origin.

[youtube]JQnka2wNa_M[/youtube]

Nice picture, which illustrates the 'homogenous' nature of the expanding cosmos through time.
"Eventually the universe would (probably) flatten out and you would see the superstructure which looks like this":

The universe will not 'flatten' out, the space between matter is widening in general, but, it can also do the reverse, although it all looks fairly uniform when one looks at the cosmic microwave background(CMB).

It looks 'uniform' or homogenous, that is quite normal, if one were a fish in a sealed, spherical 'goldfish' bowl, the view would look just so, if one were able to step outside of the universe, or, in this case, the goldfish bowl, look at the universe from far enough away & it would look just like any nova anywhere in space.
It would not to be 'uniform', only the P.O.V point of view makes it look 'uniform' , zoom in & it would appear irregular at the edge.


"or if the Higgs Boson undergoes a phase transition. Due to relativistic effects this is why it would be possible to travel between stars at extremely high velocities in relatively short times (for you), although not possible to return to your place of origin".
To be honest, it would never happen, for even the smallest particle would turn any craft into scrap with any collision at such speeds.
Interestingly enough, there are such objects as 'hypervelocity' stars, which have been ejected from their home galaxy, when a twin star has been devoured by a Black Hole, causing the other star to be catapulted out of harms way into interstellar space at high speed.

The Higgs Boson is the particle that is involved in E=MC2, 'Baryonic' being the mass or matter formed in the change from energy-matter.
You may be alluding to the 'Higgs Field' when mentioning a 'phase change', this means a rapid change from one state of matter to another, such as when ice forms rapidly on a general temperature change.

[Redneck]

Obviously I don't need to tell you all that I'm no scientist but it seems some of you are relatively narrow in your view. Basing the possibility of intelligent life solely on the human experience seems a little small. Less than 20 years ago scientists said there was no way there could be life around those underwater volcanic fissures bubbling up volcanic gasses. Then they proved to be wrong. I just think that there is much more to life than any of us realize. I think the human race holds itself in artificially high esteem.

[danholo]

No complaints at all, they're good folk. One thing though, they're not alien enough.

More serious, what will evidence of alien life mean for us? Can religions deal with it? When you think of it, a lot of questions keep coming up.

I don't know - you tell me. Believing aliens exist is a religion in itself IMO.

[Bosnjak]

Even if we find a technical superiors Species, we should not fear them they also cook just with boiling Water, more energy then a Dyson sphere do they not have.


Do not forget people without iron, just copper and bronze built a pyramid within 40 Years. We have minimum 50 Years to prepare for a visit. Because they can not travel faster then the light and in our backyard is nothing interessting.





good luck I would not bet my money on a Ultimatum to the Aliens to show up until 2025.

[Whocares386]

In my opinion we shouldn't communicate with them because we might be too ignorant and undeveloped for them and just imagine how much it is dangerous for us.

That article explains why we shouldn't communicate with them:
http://thinkandsay.net/finding-aliens/

[XogGyux]

In my opinion we shouldn't communicate with them because we might be too ignorant and undeveloped for them and just imagine how much it is dangerous for us.

That article explains why we shouldn't communicate with them:
http://thinkandsay.net/finding-aliens/

Certainly an argument can be made that attempting to communicate with an alien race, in particular a more advanced civilization, can only bring us peril. Any civilization that can reach us can destroy us at will with the flip of a button. The technology for faster than light or close to light speed (either of which are basically needed for most conceivable first contact scenarios) also means that such civilization is probably 100s if not 1000s of years more advanced. Think what we could do with our technology against a civilization that was stuck in pre-WWII technology. There is also the fear that even if peaceful, diseases inadvertently brought by our new friends and conflicts (perhaps among human) could have the same disastrous end.
On the other hand, I personally find it difficult to fathom that a very advanced civilization, that has certainly conquered interstellar travel and have the energy resources to reach other stars would care for any of our resources (a popular topic in sci-fi E.T. invasion). Simply put anything found in earth in terms of material value is much more easily found in space, likely much easier to harvest for someone (or something) with interstellar technology.
Which leaves the option that they might come for some kind of research/learning expedition or to establish diplomatic relationships. If the latter is true, then so long as we and they are careful (for the sake of diseases/etc) which seems like a reasonable assumption given that we understand a lot about diseases (and presumably they will as well) then we have very little to care.
Research/learning could still be something that could negatively affect us depending on such civilization's values and/or understanding of our existence.

[starman2003]

That is certainly one possibility, Rancid.

I very much doubt we're anywhere near the first life in the Universe.

and the Permian extinction of 250 million years ago almost killed off all life on the planet.

I read Benton but IMO the magnitude of the event has been exaggerated. Or, it wasn't quite as bad as the K-Pg. Note that Lystrosaurus survived and proliferated at the start of the Triassic.

What I want to stress here is that, while extinction events can be devastating, life is very robust (redundant), and once it has begun it is difficult to terminate it, to totality, even with mass extinction events.

Right and it's also noteworthy that not even mass extinctions set back the advancement of life; they may even have furthered it. Triassic and Cenozoic life was no less sophisticated than Permian or Mesozoic life, respectively, and in some respects it was more so.

I think the rare Earth hypothesis is questionable at this point considering the proliferation of evidence that suggests that exoplanets are common, water abundant, and so on.

Agreed.

[Potemkin]

I read Benton but IMO the magnitude of the event has been exaggerated. Or, it wasn't quite as bad as the K-Pg.

You're right, the end-Permian extinction event wasn't quite as bad as the K-Pg event - it was a lot worse. This isn't even in dispute; almost every scientific researcher agrees on this point. On what scientific evidence do you base your assertion that the end-Permian extinction event was less severe than the K-Pg event?

[mikema63]

Right and it's also noteworthy that not even mass extinctions set back the advancement of life; they may even have furthered it.

It doesn't make sense to talk about life's advancement. There is no purpose, goal, or direction to life. At best you could say that life exists to keep existing.

[starman2003]

It doesn't make sense to talk about life's advancement. There is no purpose, goal, or direction to life. At best you could say that life exists to keep existing.

But life gradually became more sophisticated and capable over time. Sure life has "no purpose" and exists to keep existing but increased complexity can, in some cases, be conducive to survival and success.
As for the end Permian crisis, it may have resulted in a greater percentage of species going extinct than the K-Pg. But the latter cleaned out all but the smallest endotherms, whereas Lystrosaurus survived and quickly proliferated. Certainly that argues the environment, and productivity, didn't take such a terrible hit. Archosaurs too not only survived but evolved in ways which contributed to great longterm success.

[mikema63]

Actually lots of things evolve to be less complex all the time. When a trait stops being useful to survival it will often be lost because less complex organisms are hardier.

Large disruptions in the environment which cause mass extinctions kill off more complex life for that reason.

There is no directionality towards complexity inherent in evolution.

[Cookie Monster]

But life gradually became more sophisticated and capable over time. Sure life has "no purpose" and exists just to keep existing but increased complexity can, in some cases, be conducive to survival and success.

Lesser complexity can just as much be conducive to survival and success. Think about, for example, microorganisms. We tend to see ourselves as masters of this planet, while in fact we are more like tenants when compared to microorganisms. They are everywhere: on the land, deep within the ground, in the oceans, high the air, and on and within other organisms, including ourselves. We cannot live without them, and some of them can easily kill us. A microorganism's body and method of reproduction is far less complex than ours, but it is far more adaptable to different and changing environments.

[starman2003]

Large disruptions in the environment which cause mass extinctions kill off more complex life for that reason.

But the end-Permian and K-Pg events didn't cause a reversion to simplicity. K-Pg survivors (i.e. surviving endotherms) may have been smaller than fatalities but just as complex, and in some cases more so.

There is no directionality towards complexity inherent in evolution.

Of course not. Nevertheless, evolutionary history witnessed the rise of increasingly complex and capable forms which didn't exist previously.
By the way, getting back to the issue of the severity of the end-Permian crisis. Just this morning I noticed a new paper by S.G. Lucas Permian Tetrapod Extinction Events. The author notes that the "magnitude of the diversity drop and the ecological severity of the end Permian tetrapod extinction have been greatly overstated"