/sci/ - Science & Math

As much of a chance that Avatards know anything about actual science.

Something that supports life? Not in our lifetime.

A moon of a gas giant that supports complex life similar to Earth's? Not within a couple centuries, but maybe in the same quadrant of the Milky Way, if we're lucky, eventually.

Sage for unrealistic fuckary.

100% with the right dosage and combination of hallucinogenics. Good luck and don't lose your mind.

>>1166376
Someone doesn't have faith.

As much of a chance that Avatards know anything about actual science.

>>1166387
Well that's disappointing.

>>1166381
This right here.

Pandora currently exists in everyone's hearts.

You just gotta believe it's there.

>>1166376
Why not? We probably won't be able to go there in our lifetime, but detecting it is another matter. But it might be easier and more likely to find a place that used real technology and put out radio wave signals than to find Fern Gully in Space.

>>1166381
>>1166392
Get the fuck out Abatap.

>>1166393
I am getting sick of people comparing Avatar to FernGully and Pocahontas.

James Cameron started writing the script for this movie in 1994. Pocahontas came out in 1995. HAH!

>>1166393
We are looking, but the odds of finding one that is close is pretty small. There's only 50 stars within 16 light years of us. Only a fraction have detectable planets, none that are emitting any detectable radiation. We're looking, yes, but I imagine it will be quite awhile before we detect any nearby.

Also, note that the odds of finding ANYTHING like Pandora in OUR galaxy is astronomical. Life? Easy to find (eventually). Life on a planet like Pandora? No chance.

since when is time a gauge of miraculous breakthroughs?.. oh. i forgot you're scientists

>>1166402
statistically speaking there could be intelligent life on one planet for every star we know of and we'd never know.

>>1166401
FurnGully came out in 1992.

Will it become possible to become a Na'vi?

Because I am thinking of attempting suicide.

>>1166410
Note my post, again.

>astronomical

I agree, statistically, it's possible. Incredibly improbable, though. About as probable as a hidden space colony in the middle of the Sun, or something.

>>1166413
Yes, that is actually the afterlife. You should get started.

>>1166423
Is that the twist?

>>1166427
Yeah, sure. Just do it quickly before it gets away!

>>1166418
not really. its basically about our inability to concretely define life outside our notions of a biosphere populated by carbon based life forms. I'm saying that it is more probable that we can never manipulate the constraints of time/space and that travel to other solar systems will have to be on 1000 year expeditions. but what im really trying to say is there are probably invisible space whales in the void of space. If man is going to double side a DVD I guaran-fucken-tee you life doesn't waste a drop of real estate. (not even going to touch trans dimensional beings and their pets)

one does not simply walk into a fictional planet.

>>1166418
>About as probable as a hidden space colony in the middle of the Sun

You are confusing the words probable and impossible.

It is probable that life exists elsewhere in the universe - there's nothing inherently special about Earth or our solar system that isn't possible anywhere else.

It's impossible for life to exist within a stellar furnace where atoms are being fused and there's enough radiation to make the inside of chernobyl's reactor containment look like a relaxing day at the spa with complimentary massage and handjob.

>>1166442
But what if, see

see, what if


what if the sun IS alive?

>>1166447
Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

>>1166474
To reflect the minimum phenomena required, some have proposed other biological definitions of life:

* Living things are systems that tend to respond to changes in their environment, and inside themselves, in such a way as to promote their own continuation.
* A network of inferior negative feedbacks (regulatory mechanisms) subordinated to a superior positive feedback (potential of expansion, reproduction).
* A systemic definition of life is that living things are self-organizing and autopoietic (self-producing). Variations of this definition include Stuart Kauffman's definition as an autonomous agent or a multi-agent system capable of reproducing itself or themselves, and of completing at least one thermodynamic work cycle.
* Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.
* Things with the capacity for metabolism and motion.

I want to be a Na'vi. :(

>>1166992
protip: you're something much better.

Capitalism doesn't support space. It won't for a big while.

>>1167012
and a new tripfag swoops down from the AEther to fire off BAM, BAM!) two short authoritative, but completely unsourced or explained, sentences!

>>1166401
Implying Pocahontas wasn't written earlier than 1995/1994

I mean, imagine someone twitching and shouting out, turrets-style, those sentences before you write them. If you can imagine it easily, then maybe you shouldn't do it.

>>1167003

This.

Even though on /tv/ I'm an avatar tripfriend I wouldn't want to live there with the savages. Science ftw!!

>>1166992
>want to live like a slightly taller nigger dyed blue

Pretty good. Make any marginally viable planet into a garbage-heap wasteland and bury a dimensional portal soemwhere there.

>>1167024
Okay then, tell me why we haven't been to space yet.
We have the technology, and we have the resources to make said technology.

>>1167079
By 'been to space' I mean been FULL ON into space. Mars and Moon base was expected by now in times like the 1970's.

>>1167079

Getting into space costs a lot.

Luckily for us, in the next 20 years SpaceX and NASA will build this super-heavy-lift rocket, Russia will build the Angara-100, Reaction Engines Limited will release the Skylon, and other corporations will develop cheapre wyas to get tourists into orbit. Then, assemble a manned mission to the asteroids using spaceplanes to get the parts of the ship into orbit where they are assembled, send it, and they start strip-mining the solar system.

>>1167079
>>1167084
It would take more than an average human's lifespan to travel to any other planet outside out solar system, we can barely travel fast enough regardless. Even though we may have the resources, we don't have the economy nor funding for it.

Get fucked.

>>1167096

I think he meant the solar system. We could colonize it in no time with today's technology, the hardest part is getting into space.

As Heinlein said: "Orbit is not halfway to the Moon, it's halfway to anywhere."

I was beginning to be able not to think about this ten hours a day, fuck you, now my heart is rent again

What if I told you there could be a system where money and jobs in their current form would not have to exist while the best in EVERYTHING could be used and we could have no scarcity of anything?

>>1167115
I would then ask why such a system is not already implemented or bring implemented.

>>1167115

There is too many chinks and such

>>1167123
Because it only exists in Iain M. Banks' books.

>>1167123
Though I know this is going to start TINFOIL HAT at the start, hear me out.
It really is because the current corporate interests are concerned with money, and the way that they do it now works for them and they get really rich. Most of them are also quite uninformed to the state of technology. If we had the money (for this think money as directly "resources") we could have OLED/LCD screens on sidewalks using completely green safe chemicals, there would be no use of fossil fuels, we could have vaccum-tube maglev trains that go 4,000 mile per hour and everything.
But, most people think of technology as in terms of the amount of money used. We have the technology and resources to have every single of the 6.7 billion humans on the planet to make every single fucking person the the planet live like a billionare, while having permanent security (if there's no war which there most probably wouldn't be for there would be no oil wars and such) while allowing for huge super-structure things to be done anywhere from bridging the gap inbetween Spain and Morocco to space elevators.

>>1166376
But you do realize that we will just have to observe an atmosphere or to be more precise the composition of another atmosphere?

If there are other planets that could support life, they would be visible from earth. It all depends on how precise our equipment is.

>>1167141

Yeah, I know.

I know it's future hype, but still: I just hope nanotech does what Kurzweil and all the nutjobs say it will do. A second industrial revolution. Bring wealth to every level of society.

And then we will be able to think about going to the stars.

>>1166401
oh_u.jpg

>>1167176
What if I told you it could be done within the next 15 years?

>>1167181
>could be

herpa derp

>>1167193
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/07/ibm-demonstrates-100ghz-graphene-transistor/
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/06/heated-atomic-force-microscope-makes-12nm-graphene-circu
its.ars
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/03/22/carbon-nanotubes-could-make-lighter-more-powerful-batteries-im/

>>1167198
>is still quite a ways away,
>For those keeping score, this first-of-its-kind transistor already beats the frequency performance of current state-of-the-art silicon transistors of the same gate length, which now top out at a mere

derp

>>1167206
>The second link says its quite close because of the new method
Read moar

>>1167181

I know that. And I wish more people did, it would help keep the hopes up :D

>>1167223
Well the way i see it, i'm going to be here, telling people.
My hope is people I tell will mention it to some other people some time in their life when the topic comes up. And so forth.

All it needs is media attention.

>>1167231

I'm trying to spread the word too.

Forums, chans, omegle chats (Though most are retards). Not just about nanotech and all, but science in general.

Spreading science is fun.

>>1167246
Indeed.