/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2463141]

http://www.space.com/10742-kepler-exoplanets-data.html
>56 earth sized planets in the habitable zone

Mother FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2463154]

[Anonymous No.2463169]

How long would it take us to get to the closest one?

[Anonymous No.2463180]

>>2463169
Well, the stars Kepler is surveying at the moment are about 500 light years away, so it's doubtful we'll ever reach those any time soon, but the exciting part about all this is the fact that we have a much better idea of the statistics of other solar systems throughout the galaxy.

[Anonymous No.2463200]

>>2463180
Isn't it simply monitoring stars UP TO 500 light years away? Any star in its field of vision could be monitored.

[Anonymous No.2463229]

Does this count as a galaxy rise?

[Anonymous No.2463240]

sweet lets go and holocost them mother fuckers for the name of RELIGIONNNNNNNNN

[Anonymous No.2463253]

>>2463240
Get off my board.

[Anonymous No.2463264]

What... this is impossible

[Anonymous No.2463291]

And this is from data gathered in 2009. Imagine the surprises still awaiting us...

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463308]

None of them are orbiting Sun like stars, but I suppose that isn't a bad thing because smaller stars are stable longer.

[Anonymous No.2463312]

April 13 2036.
You gonna see some serious shit.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463320]

>>2463312
>doc_brown.jpg

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463360]

But srlsy, I won't more details on these planets.

[Anonymous No.2463422]

Sagan Bump

[Anonymous No.2463440]

>>2463141
For a second i thought it said a planet the size of 56 earths.

[Anonymous No.2463448]

What's the absolute fastest we can go right now?

The fastest speed a probe could go to one of those Earth 2.0 planets, and hypothetically, the fastest speed people could go?
How do we get faster space travel?

Cause like, we should go there. There might be fucking life there.

[Anonymous No.2463453]

>>2463308
If the stars are too small, the habitable zone is so close in that the planet becomes tidally locked. That's probably not great for life.

Of course I'm not saying that life can't exist on such a planet.

[Anonymous No.2463460]

>>2463448

It'd be a major undertaking to build a vessel both fast enough to reach the stars in a timely fashion AND able to withstand impacts from space dust and what have you at those speeds.

That said, what we currently have available could make a pretty fast ship.

[Anonymous No.2463464]

>>2463448

500 light years away. meaning if we somehow went at the speed of light, it would take 500 years to get there.

faster-than-light speed travel is impossible. meaning, "going there" is impossible

[Anonymous No.2463476]

>>2463453
>That's probably not great for life.
On the contrary, it produces a very stable climate. Most planets tilt on their axis from time to time causing major climactic shifts. Earth has a Moon which reduces the degree of these changes in tilt. If a planet is tidally locked it does't undergo such tilts because tidal locking is very stable. You have a hotter region that is always hotter. A band of twilight that is always not too hot and not to cold, and then a backside that is always cold.

Alien sure, but it has definite benefits.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463480]

>>2463448
By the time it gets there we would have already known if it has life or not by using spectroscopy.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2463484]

>>2463464

>meaning, "going there" is impossible

Not true. Relativistic flight is possible.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463494]

>>2463484
I think we are talking about probes, not manned missions.

We are talking about probes right?

[Anonymous No.2463501]

>>2463480

how

[снайпер No.2463502]

>>2463464
No, it means going there will take longer than 500 years.

We have stone buildings on Earth that have lasted ten times as long, I think we can manage.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2463503]

>>2463494

Anything really.

[Anonymous No.2463506]

oh kepler u so crazy

I remember when this mission got me interested in astrobiology. First day in astrophysics class I got the fuck out of there and didn't look back.

[Anonymous No.2463508]

>>2463502
As CCM said, relativistic flight can get you to a place 500 ly away. Just remember to kiss your friends and family goodbye forever before you go.

[Anonymous No.2463511]

Oh wow.

I would honestly, truly love to see an alien species that does not have DNA. It would be ridiculously interesting for evolutionary theory.

[снайпер No.2463517]

>>2463501
Spectroscopy uses light to measure the chemical composition of the planet's atmosphere.

Large concentrations of gases like Oxygen would be a huge red flag, but not necessarily indicative of life. [I think fizx is being a bit optimistic here.]

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463518]

After alien life is detected on other worlds around other stars, THIS is the mission that will be sent.

[Anonymous No.2463523]

>>2463518
Did you read the actual expedition book?

So much cooler than the "adaptation."

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463531]

>>2463517
What else would produce oxygen? To my knowledge there isn't a single thing that would produce large amounts of it except a biosphere. It wouldn't be 100%, but I wouldn't call it optimistic.

[Anonymous No.2463534]

What is relativistic flight? A bird?

[Anonymous No.2463535]

>>2463517
Well no guarantees, but oxygen is notoriously reactive. Seeing a lot of free oxygen in an atmosphere almost definitely means something abnormal is going on.

Yes, I called life "abnormal." Douglas Adams would be proud.

And the term "red flag" is usually used to describe a glaring ERROR ;)

[Anonymous No.2463543]

aliums.

[снайпер No.2463547]

Also, with current technology we can achieve speeds of around 3-5% of c. One of the best candidates right now for interstellar flight would be Project Orion - using the power of nuclear bombs to get us to the stars.

At that speed, you'd be looking at reaching a star 500ly away within 20,000 years. Probably within 15,000 years even.

[Anonymous No.2463548]

>>2463534

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2463551]

>>2463534

http://www.charlespellegrino.com/propulsion.htm

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463554]

>>2463523
I read the wikipedia page. I don't like books who try and convince you of stuff... or at least in when they are in the form of fiction. It seemed too H,FN! and too environmentalism oriented. Humans ruin their environment and then a race of benevolent environmentalist aliens comes down from on high and helps humanity fix everything? It just rubs me the wrong way.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463561]

I love this thread. This is what /sci/ should be like all the time.

[Anonymous No.2463562]

>>2463141

[Anonymous No.2463565]

>>2463543

You never know brah. There could be an advanced alien civilization on one of those planets... That may have visited Earth in the past... You never know.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463569]

>>2463523
I read the wikipedia page. I don't like books that try to convince you of stuff... or at least when they take the form of fiction. The book seemed too H,FN! and too environmentalism oriented. Humans ruin their environment and then a race of benevolent environmentalist aliens comes down from on high and helps humanity fix everything? It just rubs me the wrong way.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463573]

But srsly, astronomy gets me high.

[Anonymous No.2463577]

>>2463565
>>>/x/
If aliens want to study Earth, they either make contact or they don't. Not fucking around by buzzing cell phone cameras and making crop circles.

[Anonymous No.2463579]

some of them are ~25 ly away, theoretical bussard drives have about .5c speed so we could get there and back in 100 years

but think, of a measly 156000 stars examined 58 of them have planets which you or i could stand on and bathe on and possibly live on

there are 400 billion stars in the milky way, for a possible 144 MILLION habitable planets, just in our galaxy

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463582]

Maybe one of these days /sci/ should raid /x/ and shoot down every half baked theory they talk about with cold hard facts. LOL

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463589]

>>2463579
And don't forget this is for very small stars. The period through which this data was attained only allowed for the compilation of Earth like planets with very short years (ie their star isn't very massive). Many more of those stars may have Earth like planets but we have yet to find them because their years are longer.

>mfw a glorious dawn awaits

[Anonymous No.2463590]

>>2463577
>Implying they aren't testing the water

[Anonymous No.2463594]

>>2463582
That could be fun, but at some point it's like trying to put a dent in a gas giant by chucking small rocks at it. Even if you manage to make a splash, it doesn't really have any effect.

[Anonymous No.2463596]

>>2463582
>Implying there is only one way to interpret facts

[Anonymous No.2463601]

>>2463579
>theoretical bussard drives have about .5c speed
They could theoretically accelerate to 90% speed of light.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463619]

>>2463594
1) It will give /sci/ a couple laughs.
2) It will provide some needed /sci/ comradery.
3) In a world of nearly 7 billion individuals, single actions never amount to much, but that doesn't make them worthless. It would be more than worth it if we convinced a single anon that there are no ghosts, that the Moon landing wasn't a hoax, or that [insert supernatural concept] does not exist.

saging because this isn't the topic of the thread

[Anonymous No.2463621]

>>2463596
lolwhat
There's a difference between "what do these facts mean" or "what theory do these facts support", and "how can I spin this to make it spooky" or "how can I interpret this in the most titillating way possible"

[снайпер No.2463623]

Now if only we can get a working warp drive...

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1009/1009.5663.pdf

Describes that magnetoelectric metamaterials built from split ring resonators could allow a subluminal warp drive that can reach 1/8th to 1/4th lightspeed. [12.5%-25%]

Which is pretty damn cool. From what I know and understand about the alcubierre drive, the spacecraft itself just sits within a bubble of spacetime, so it essentially doesn't actually move, the space around it does. This would mean that a reactionless drive might actually be possible, and if it can accelerate to full speed or come to a complete stop nearly instantly, it would dramatically cut down travel time.

For starters, at 0.12c, Pluto is only 2 days away. Colonization of the solar system wouldn't seem so daunting anymore.

[Anonymous No.2463626]

>mfw we might find extra terrestrial life before i die

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463637]

>>2463626

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463638]

>>2463551
>>2463623
You guys and your links. I love it.

[Anonymous No.2463640]

>>2463511

This, 100x over.

[Anonymous No.2463648]

>>2463623

wat

[Anonymous No.2463650]

>>2463596
>implying /x/ isn't full of bullshit

[Anonymous No.2463651]

I don't get what you're cheering about, that article looked really fishy. No named planets, no citations of scientific studies, it seems to be composed of completely unfounded claims.

I'm not really sure there's any truth to this one.

[Anonymous No.2463655]

>>2463619
So, it would be like trolling /sci/ with terrible science, except we troll /x/ with reasoned arguments and data?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463656]

>>2463651
>no citations of scientific studies
NASA had a press release today releasing some of the findings of astronomers studying Kepler data.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463660]

>>2463655
Exactly.

[Anonymous No.2463663]

Fuck yeah NASA
Fuck yeah Kepler

Took you long enough, now compile that data into a video game!

[Anonymous No.2463666]

>>2463621
/x/ goes with the former and /sci/ rigidly sticks to their dogma and anything that disagrees is regarded as fraud, experimenter error, mechanical error or swamp gas

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463668]

>>2463663
If the article is accurate the data for these planets is years old. The majority of the data from Kepler's launch until today has yet to be released presumably.

[Anonymous No.2463670]

>>2463660
Awesome. We'd have to come prepared to quickly and overwhelmingly demonstrate something simple, without opening loopholes for bullshitting. Like the "moon landing hoax".

"Hey /x/fags, if the moon landing is faked, why did the Russians never call bullshit?

Pic related, it's independent lunar orbiter photos of footprints on the moon."

[Anonymous No.2463676]

>>2463666
0/10
/x/ bases conversation on "what would be cool/scary", not "what is the simplest and most coherent explanation as supported by evidence"

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463677]

>>2463666
The dogma of controlled experimental parameters and rigor?

[Anonymous No.2463684]

should I be skeptical about this?

[Anonymous No.2463686]

This is true, it's even been up on most sites for a few hours; eg.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/02/02/science-space-kepler-planets.html

"In a statement, Borucki noted that many could also have moons with liquid water. That even holds for planets so large that their gravity would crush life as we know it."

Does this mean if life were to exist on one of these behemoth plants, whether it may be a single celled organism or a multicellular one, they'd be able to withstand much more gravitational pressure than we can?

[Anonymous No.2463689]

>>2463668
They didn't want to do it piecemiel so they kept the data secret till now

[Anonymous No.2463690]

>>2463684

I think it's safe to be cautiously optimistic. Remember the scientific method, conclusion comes last. We still need the raw data.

[Anonymous No.2463691]

>>2463684
Cautiously optimistic. Also, don't take the popsci interpretation, ever.

[Anonymous No.2463696]

Transmetropolitan bro! Think of all these new planets to hack! Superhero like, even.

Hack the planets!

[Anonymous No.2463697]

>>2463690
>>2463691
Cautiouslyoptimisticmind

[Anonymous No.2463698]

>>2463677
The dogma of 'this is our theory, what evidence can we use to support it'

[Anonymous No.2463701]

>>2463696
2/10 because you threw in Transmetropolitan

[Anonymous No.2463702]

>>2463690
>>2463691
cautious optimism mind

anyway, I'll just wait and see then.

[снайпер No.2463704]

>>2463698
That's not science brah, try again.

[Anonymous No.2463705]

>>2463579
Actually, to the rider on the 0.5c ship, the 50ly round trip would become 43.3ly and so would take 86.6 years.

Not great, but with constant ion acceleration you could cut that down significantly.

[Anonymous No.2463713]

>>2463623
I wish I was educated enough to understand that article.

[Anonymous No.2463714]

Things like this makes me so mad.

I WAS BORN TO EARLY!

As a biologist I want to know how alien species work :(

[Anonymous No.2463717]

>>2463698
Science does not work that way. Stop reading studies funded by special interest groups.

I agree that confirmation bias and preconceived conclusions are terrible, but science as a whole is not operating on that principle, by a long shot.

You should read some Karl Popper on scientific revolutions and how they work. What you're saying has some truth to it, but it's not the condemnation of all science you seem to think it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

[Anonymous No.2463728]

>>2463676

/x/ likes to tell ghost stories and rp. Get off your fucking horse, delusional faggot.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463738]

>>2463689
It's still only a fraction of the data though.

[Anonymous No.2463739]

>>2463728
So, you're saying that /x/ doesn't genuinely believe that any of their fantasies are real?

Not so sure, bro. Like in furries, there's a difference between "I just like drawing anthro characters" and "FUCK YOU I'M A DRAGON".

[Anonymous No.2463752]

>>2463739

/x/ beats /sci/ hands down when it comes to imagination. They'd probably be funner to hang around with IRL as well.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2463753]

>This thread

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463758]

>>2463739
LOL

[Anonymous No.2463767]

>>2463704
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

[Anonymous No.2463768]

>>2463758

Fail.

You can't samefag when ur trippin bro.

[Anonymous No.2463771]

>>2463753
oh carl sagan

u so bizarre

[Anonymous No.2463783]

>>2463752
>blah blah trolling trolling nerds are boring
Whatever, man. I went on a date with a girl once, and then found out she actually believed in the existence of magic. Yeah, no.

And I don't think the kind of people who think horoscopes are anything other than bullshit are the kind of people I'd want to be around on a regular basis. But I'm getting off-topic.

Does /x/ buy into astrology, anyway?

[Anonymous No.2463792]

>>2463768
For what it's worth, I know that it wasn't a samefag. I'm the guy who wrote the "dragon" thing.
Reference to
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Fuck_you,_I'm_a_dragon!

[Anonymous No.2463795]

>>2463783

Fuck these people, I don't know them. I'd think most of them are in it just for giggles though. I think they get it; ya know, why take yourself so seriously when no one else does?

And on the bright side, their oft delusional condition is highly conducive to balls fucking awesome OC and drawthreads. What has /sci/ produced lately?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463797]

>>2463752
>/x/ beats /sci/ hands down when it comes to imagination though. They'd probably be funner to hang around with IRL as well.
>/b/ beats /x/ hands down when it comes to imagination though. They'd probably be funner to hang around with IRL as well.
Imagination extends beyond 7 year olds pretending they are dinosaurs. If one isn't very imaginative then one cannot be a scientist. Have you ever tried coming up with explanations for yet explained data that doesn't fit into the models established by past studies? It takes a buttload of imagination.

[Anonymous No.2463798]

>>2463783
Some of them do. I've seen threads on it when I was looking for any halfway decent pasta. It didn't feel good to know these people are on 4chan, man.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463808]

>>2463768
Don't get antagonist bro. That wasn't me and I'm not attacking you. I was laughing at
>Like in furries, there's a difference between "I just like drawing anthro characters" and "FUCK YOU I'M A DRAGON".

[Anonymous No.2463810]

>>2463792

No worries dude ;p I figured. Got off work and bored. Had to step up for /x/, they're like a little bro to /sci/ imo. It all stems from an overactive imagination.

[Anonymous No.2463812]

>>2463705
see
>>2463601

Trip there and back would be only 24.21 years, so you would leave a universityfag and come back a proffessorfag

[Anonymous No.2463813]

>>2463795
>balls fucking awesome OC and drawthreads.
>What has /sci/ produced lately?
You seem to think all boards have the same purpose: to entertain *you*, specifically, according to your tastes.

[Anonymous No.2463815]

>>2463704
>>2463717
Evidence for gravity wave. None
Scientific consensus. They exist for definite

Evidence for cold fusion. Hundreds of studies from around the world that show excess energy, helium, tritium and neutrons. Replicability is around 60%
Scientific consensus from the 2004 doe review. Clearly contamination, barely above background levels. What would cause the contamination?... Fuck you

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463818]

>>2463768
Don't get antagonistic bro. That wasn't me and I'm not attacking you. I was laughing at
>Like in furries, there's a difference between "I just like drawing anthro characters" and "FUCK YOU I'M A DRAGON".

[Anonymous No.2463823]

>>2463813
>Nothing

Fixed

[Anonymous No.2463836]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/news/kepler_data_release.html

The nasa link for those that are unable to interpret html code

[снайпер No.2463844]

This thread needs more speculation on biological jet engines.

[Anonymous No.2463846]

>>2463815
Anyone who knows any science sees right through you. There are excellent reasons to believe in the probable existence of gravity waves - GR implies them, and GR is the best theory we've got in explaining large-scale phenomenon.

But scientists don't say "they exist for definite", or WE WOULDN'T BE LOOKING FOR THEM. Not finding them in situations where GR predicts they should be detected would be even *more* important than simply confirming their existence. Either way, we're stoked about doing the experiments.

>Evidence for cold fusion. Hundreds of studies from around the world that show excess energy, helium, tritium and neutrons. Replicability is around 60%
I don't think that number is right. "Replicability" is not 60%. Not even close.
>Scientific consensus from the 2004 doe review. Clearly contamination, barely above background levels. What would cause the contamination?... >Fuck you
Why don't you tell me about your car that runs on water?

If cold fusion worked and "the establishment" just "wouldn't accept the truth", why hasn't it just been DONE, and put into use, so they could embarrass the entire scientific community? Why?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463848]

>>2463815
When well established theories predict something one should probably go along with it. If there was an alternative to general relativity that explains everything general relativity does but didn't predict gravity waves and if no gravity waves were detected when general relativity predicted they would be, then there would be a good reason to jump ship and go with the new theory. That is not the case.

You need to learn how real scientists balance theory and observation. Are you a science major?

[Anonymous No.2463867]

>>2463797

In fact I have. I also think it would be more productive to guide those with creative minds and amazing insight to more productive fields. Bashing their perspective is only going to turn them off to /sci/.

[Anonymous No.2463875]

>Planet candidates require follow-up observations to verify they are actual planets.

Oh, NASA

[Anonymous No.2463877]

>>2463812
No I missed that post. Thank you.
It's looking nicer all the time!

[Anonymous No.2463879]

>>2463846
>I admit there is no evidence but I will stick to my dogma

Fixed

[Anonymous No.2463882]

>>2463867
I agree that constructive criticism and teaching is more effective than mockery and derision. But that doesn't mean that imagination is useful without a dose of reality.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463888]

>>2463844
That is a lot of methane to produce. I'm skeptical about the feasibility of such propulsion.

[Anonymous No.2463896]

>>2463848
http://www.metaresearch.org/

[Anonymous No.2463898]

>>2463879
u troll?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463900]

>>2463867
More productive fields than science? What?

[Anonymous No.2463912]

>>2463896
>Something has gone wrong in the field of astronomy. Many widely held beliefs fly in the face of observational evidence. Theories go through such contortions to resolve inconsistencies that the ideas can no longer be explained in simple language.
blah blah blah
The Crackpot Index
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[Anonymous No.2463917]

>>2463900
More than /x/, I think he means.

[Anonymous No.2463924]

>>2463846
http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm

Read the review and critiques for yourself.

Yes the replicability really is that high, as you'll see when you read the papers

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463934]

>>2463875
The follow up observations have been carried out. Kepler requires the planets pass in front of their stars 3 or more times. The planets that have been released are the ones that have passed in front of their stars that many times. It will take longer for NASA to release info on other planets with longer orbital periods because it takes longer for them to get 3 or more readings.

[Anonymous No.2463937]

>>2463813

LOL. Why are you here? Did you not get your fill of evolution vs christianity threads today? Or maybe troll physics? Prove to me .999... = 1. LOL.

Don't get me wrong, /sci/ can have some great convos. But we produce nothing of worth aside from pedantic bickering and wanna-be robots.

=P Srs nao guy. C'mon.
>>2463813
>>2463813

[Anonymous No.2463943]

>>2463912
>Get linked to alternative model of the universe
>Reject it without looking at any of the evidence

[Anonymous No.2463948]

>Still can't survive long term in space because twats still too busy thinking about colonizing Mars for arbitrary reasons which don't actually benefit us
>we will never get to these planets if this shit keeps up

sadfrog.jpg

[Anonymous No.2463955]

>>2463896
I went to an area that I understand reasonably well, and was not disappointed. He fails hard at the Twin Paradox.
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
>Suppose that the traveling twin is born as his spaceship passes by Earth and both of his on-board clocks are synchronized with clocks on Earth. The natural on-board clock ticks more slowly than the GPS on-board clock because the rates differ by the factor gamma that SR predicts for the slowing of all clocks with relative speed v. [gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v2/c2)] But everywhere the traveling twin goes, as long as his speed relative to the Earth frame does not change, his GPS clock will give identical readings to any Earth-synchronized Earth-frame clock he passes along the way. And his natural clock will read less time elapsed since passing Earth by the factor gamma. His biological processes (including aging), which presumably operate at rates comparable to the ticking of the natural clock, are also slowed by the factor gamma.
But this is wrong. It is the GPS clock that ticks more slowly. It's just SR time dilation - a clock moving relative to your frame seems to tick more slowly, as compared to clocks in your frame. He gets this entirely backwards. It is inexcusable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Relative_velocity_time_dilation
>When two observers are in relative uniform motion and far away from any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the magnitude of time dilation.

THIS is the kind of shit that scientists have to deal with all the time. And it's why so many crackpots bitch and moan when they can't get their "papers" past peer review. Their theories contain huge and basic errors, but they aren't willing to see that.

[Anonymous No.2463960]

Fuck you guys.
This thread was awesome one hour ago. And now it is was every other thread here is, a flamewar.

Just shut up, please

No one cares wether youa re right or wrong.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2463962]

>>2463937
If you don't like it leave. I love these kinds of thread. Awesome links pop up a lot more than any other board too. This board satisfies my curiosity more than any other board therefore it is my favorite board.

[Anonymous No.2463963]

>>2463943
Nice try. I'm >>2463955

[Anonymous No.2463964]

>>2463943
>Get linked to wrong model of universe
>Close page to stop further wasting time

FTFY

[Anonymous No.2463969]

>>2463960
Go away. Do you just want more people to say "OMG I hope there are aliens". It's been said. What's left?

If you want to start a speculative biology thread, be my guest.

[Anonymous No.2463977]

>>2463969
He's right. It did go from respectable scientific discourse into flame turds.

[Anonymous No.2463990]

>mfw we haven't even scoped out Europa yet. mfw I have no face.

Wouldn't it be smarter to stick closer to home?

[Anonymous No.2463993]

>>2463924
>Yes the replicability really is that high, as you'll see when you read the papers
WHAT

Oh god, are you using "replicability" to mean how often the AUTHORS of the paper could get it to work? What in the fucking shit.

I've got a related topic for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater
And here's another, when you're done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

[Anonymous No.2464001]

>>2463977
.... and you don't blame the trolls?

Though there is rule 14, of course. Eh.

[Anonymous No.2464004]

>>2463964
>Get linked to alternative model of the universe
>Reject it because it differs from what I've been told

Fixed

[Anonymous No.2464005]

>>2464004
No.
>>2463955
Stop trolling. It's against the rules.

[Anonymous No.2464010]

>>2463962

Awesome. We're in agreeance then. I like to take my /sci/ with a healthy dose of reality though too... I'm not accomplishing much by being here. Time better used outside, actually doing something. Or at least writing some creepypasta or sketching a completely awesome, well endowed dragon.
>>2463813
>>2463813
>>2463962
>>2463962
>>2463962

[Anonymous No.2464017]

>>2464010
>or sketching a completely awesome, well endowed dragon.
GTFO.

[Anonymous No.2464020]

>>2464001
I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just sad it's now turds.

>>2464004
Now look at that, you've gone and broken it again.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464039]

IMHO if a civilization establishes a self-sustaining growth beyond it's homeworld's gravity then there is very little reason why they would not spread throughout the galaxy. If that were the case then we would more likely than not hear from nearby colonized star systems, after all, they have had billions of years to colonize everything worth colonizing. So why then aren't they there?

Assuming that they aren't there, there must be a bottleneck in the evolution of space faring civilizations. That bottleneck is either the number of habitable worlds, the likelihood of life forming, the likelihood of intelligent life evolving, or the practicality of becoming a space faring civilization.

The existence of humanity makes the first 3 proposed bottlenecks less likely than the 4rth and these new findings on how many Earth like worlds there are particularly trounces the 1st proposed bottleneck. The most likely bottleneck is therefore the 4th. It simply isn't practical for intelligent life to leave their homeworld. Either they blow themselves or use up their own resources before they establish a permanent foothold in space.

IMO

[Anonymous No.2464043]

Assuming...Not only does extraterritorial life, they should also exist in large numbers. This in turn proves that either we are in a really isolated region of the universe or intergalactic travel is as difficult as it seems right now.

Damn, imagine two planets in a system that both have intelligent life...the history of war and communication will be fucking epic. Instead of stupid countries fighting each other, you have a whole civilization trying to reach the sky.

[Anonymous No.2464044]

>>2464020
It's trolls, man. Ignore and move on.

I'm still pretty pleased at how quickly I could find a fucking huge and fundamental error in that bullshit website:
>>2463955

[Anonymous No.2464055]

>>2464044
>"Ignore troll"
>brag about your rebuttal to same troll
:(

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464060]

>>2464043
Why are you talking about intergalactic travel?

[Anonymous No.2464064]

>>2464039
what if we are the first species ever to go into space?

[Anonymous No.2464075]

In the habitable zone for US.

ET life won't necessarily have the same habitable zones.

[Anonymous No.2464076]

A STILL MORE GLORIOUS DAWN AWAITS!

[Anonymous No.2464078]

>>2464039
>The existence of humanity makes the first 3 proposed bottlenecks less likely than the 4rth
NO.
The probability that a lottery winner has won the lottery is 100%, this doesn't make it likely. Maybe there are only a few planets in the galaxy that have fostered life. Maybe it happened later than on Earth and so they're still Bacteria or something.

[Anonymous No.2464079]

>>2464055
Yeah, that's some hypocrisy on my part, it seems. Maybe I was rebuking myself as much as the other guy.

Or I didn't think he was a troll at that point. Oh well.

[Anonymous No.2464090]

>>2464064
Then we get to be the fucking Progenitors.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464097]

>>2464064
Then that would mean the formation of life or the evolution of intelligent species is very very very unlikely. However we are here. The 4th step has yet to be observed therefore it has yet to be shown to be as likely as the other 3 steps.

Obviously it is hard to generalize using one example (Earth), but I think it is reasonable enough to view the 4th step as less likely than the other 3.

[Anonymous No.2464103]

Find the most promising one, target all our radio telescopes and spam the shit out of them transmitting everything possible. Then wait for few hundred years. Yes, I'm being overly optimistic but I don't give a fuck.
Also, go there.

[Anonymous No.2464106]

>>2464090
We'll go to random planets, help primitive species stack rocks and in the future they'll wonder whether or not aliens visited their planet

[Anonymous No.2464113]

>>2464097
We can't really argue probability from a sample size of one. Sorry - I know it's a fun discussion to entertain, but there's no data to sustain it.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464137]

>>2464078
If we are the first intelligent species to evolve that means either it is very unlikely for life to form or very unlikely for intelligent life to evolve. Given that life formed on Earth and that there is very little doubt that there have been MANY worlds that have had Earth like histories well before the formation of Sol it stands to reason that intelligent life has come about long before us UNLESS you are proposing that life or intelligent life are very very very rare despite how common Earth like planets are.

[Anonymous No.2464144]

hERE'S WHAT WE DO. we send a probe packed with billions of waterbears to the nearest habitable planet.

???!!11
profit

[Anonymous No.2464155]

>>2463141
SAGAN WAS RIGHT!

Sweet fuck! Someone take all my money and use it to propel humanity into the Glorious dawn!

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464156]

>>2464113
But we know there have been many Earth like environments in the Milky Way before Earth. Are you saying that life is rare or are you saying the evolution of intelligent life is really really rare? They would have to be to keep intelligent life from evolving despite ample numbers of worlds and 10 billion years of time to develop.

Either making it into space is nye impossible, the galaxy is almost utterly lifeless, or 99% of life never becomes much more than bacteria.

[Anonymous No.2464157]

>>2464078
We have shown in lab tests that life is all but inevitable given the right conditions (carbon, water, heat etc)

[Anonymous No.2464175]

>>2464157
Jiggering up lab conditions that produce amino acids is a far cry from abiogenesis. Not that I discount the idea.

[Anonymous No.2464179]

>>2464156
>Are you saying that life is rare or are you saying the evolution of intelligent life is really really rare?
I'm saying we have no fucking clue, because we only have data from one planet.

[Anonymous No.2464181]

>>2464175
Can you fault the experiment?

[Anonymous No.2464182]

i want to be on the first ship to Pandora.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464191]

>>2464144
We would need to send several other forms of life like algae and lichen (several species of each) if you plan on establishing an ecosystem instead of monitoring a bunch of water bears waking up and subsequently starving to death.

It would really suck if it turned out that there was already alien life on the planet and Earth life overwhelmed it. That would be a lot of lost data. That is why such a mission would never be carried out.

[Anonymous No.2464194]

>>2464182
>inb4 its not what you thought

[Anonymous No.2464197]

>>2464137
Yes, I am proposing that the development of intelligent life is possibly very rare and that you are not sufficiently humbled by the anthropic principle

[Anonymous No.2464200]

Obligatory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY59wZdCDo0

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464207]

>>2464182
I never understood why people got that Avatar-syndrome, where they left the movie depressed because they wanted to be on Pandora. Earth is fucking amazing!

[Anonymous No.2464214]

>>2464197
We may have only one data point for how life evolves, but the fact that we have not been visited yet is very telling about its chances to explore.

[Anonymous No.2464222]

>>2464207
I left the movie pissed as hell. God, such a bad movie.

Pretty, but cringe worthy.

[Anonymous No.2464225]

>>2464181
No - just criticize the overextension of the results in popsci interpretations.

I'm even more annoyed about the popsci interpretation of the guys who have created "artificial life from scratch" - except they did it by reprogramming a living cell.

I'm not faulting the science, but rather the popscience it spawns thanks to media.

[Anonymous No.2464229]

Intelligent life doesn't exist beyond Earth. All the astronomical proof points to the non-existence of life beyond Earth.

[Anonymous No.2464232]

>>2464207
I left the movie depressed because it was bad.

Floating rocks and blue human beings being called "aliens" was a knife through the gut.

But hey, smart is uncool, and Hollywood makes money from the willfully ignorant. So it pretty much met my expectations.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464234]

>>2464197
I find it very unlikely that a world nearly identical to Earth wouldn't create multicellular life on a level of complexity on par with the Cambrian. Why wouldn't it? Once another world's version of the Cambrian Explosion happens there is no reason why intelligent life wouldn't evolve very the next several billion years. It only took half a billion for Earth to evolve humans and there is at least another 1 billion years before the Sun's evolution starts to change Earth's environment drastically.

[Anonymous No.2464235]

>>2464194
sauce for science!

What? It's xenobiology. I think.

[Anonymous No.2464237]

>>2464207
You can't be a furry with a penistail which fucks trees though

Who do you think paid for the 15 dollar tickets all this time? It was furfags bro

[Anonymous No.2464239]

>>2464229
You're saying two different things, and neither of them are really supported by evidence.

[Anonymous No.2464240]

>>2464207
does earth have giant dragons you can hop on a fly around on?

[Anonymous No.2464244]

>>2464240
No, and Gaia isn't real either. Now eat your vegetables.

[Anonymous No.2464248]

>>2464240

does if you can pay the fare

[Anonymous No.2464250]

>>2464239
The burden of proof is on those who posit the existence of alien life.

[Anonymous No.2464251]

>>2464225
Actually they never said "artificial" but "synthetic", they mean different things

Also this experiment is old, established and I don't read popscience

[Anonymous No.2464261]

>>2464232
because having a planet with an atmosphere and gravity impossible for humans to visit and having it inhabited by walking jellyfish that queef to communicate would have been a much better "smarter" movie right?
more realistic doesn't = smarter/better movie

[Anonymous No.2464266]

>>2464250
?
No, the burden of proof is on those who propose that the rest of the universe is not similar to that which is currently known.

[Anonymous No.2464274]

>>2464261
Like Avatar was a good movie in its own right?
LOL
I liked RedLetterMedia's review.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA

[Anonymous No.2464275]

>>2463912
>50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

iseewhathedidthere.jpg

[Anonymous No.2464279]

>>2464250
You're right. But nobody's positing. Only hypothesizing. So your claim is rather meaningless.

[Anonymous No.2464280]

>>2464266
That's right. The rest of the universe besides Earth doesn't have life.

[Anonymous No.2464281]

>>2464274
I saw that! The part about how they designed the Na'vi was really fucking rage-inducing. Disney eyes, kitty ears and nose, and sexy lips. I knew my "you're being manipulated" alarms were going off for the whole movie, and now it makes sense!

[Anonymous No.2464293]

>>2464279
Saying that there are aliens is an even more ridiculous claim.

[Anonymous No.2464296]

>>2464280
Uh, no. We have not observed this to be the case. However, it IS reasonable to think that few planets, if any, in a given solar system harbor life, because we've observed this solar system fairly well - and the only one with a large biosphere is Earth. Another tacit requirement is liquid water, but at that point it starts becoming obvious that we are overstepping the bounds of what we can reasonably conclude from evidence.

Not that we might not find microbes or shrimp under the surface of Europa or something.

[Anonymous No.2464302]

>>2464293
why?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464303]

>>2464232
Come on now. Avatar was one of the most realistic blockbuster sci-fi movies to hit the silver screen in a long time. There was no artificial gravity and no FTL. Most of the crazy shit was also explained in relative depth too, like unobtanium.

List of problems with the movie:
1) Unobtanium isn't real, but I count that as the movies single get out of jail free card because a good science fiction movie has at least one aspect that requires suspending disbelief.
2) Humanoid aliens are BS, but it is hard to empathize with the 6 tentacles, sonar using, hive-minded amoeba people of Vega 4. I let it slide because I need facial reactions to judge the social intricacies of intelligent beings interacting. Using realistically alien forms simply isn't an option. Even the bug/squid people of District 9 are humanoid and have very human like facial expressions.
3) The floating mountains were needed for the finally scene. However I don't know why they could have had just a bizarre honeycombed mountain range structure instead of full fledged floating mountains. They explained them using unobtanium, which falls under the Get Out of Jail Free Card, but it was noted by some physicist that the magnetic fields required for such a feat would rip the hemoglobin out of your blood, so the floating mountains count as a weakness. The liberal use of the term "Flux Vortex" was particularly mind numbing.
4) The whole concept of the Avatar Program is unexplained. How the hell can these things transmit signals between bodies instantaneously? Why is it that no other form of communication can operate in the Flux Vortex but avatars have no problem with it?

So, 1 gets a free pass, 2 is needed, leaving 3 and 4 as the actual weaknesses of the movie. Those are hardly worth complaining about given that the movie doesn't use artificial gravity or FTL.

[Anonymous No.2464306]

>>2464302
Astronomers have never found a single Earth-like planet.

[Anonymous No.2464309]

>>2464303
>Avatar was one of the most realistic blockbuster sci-fi movies to hit the silver screen in a long time.
What, compared to The Core and The Day After Tomorrow? That's hardly a meaningful bar to top. How about comparing it to Jurassic Park, at least?

And don't get me started on the fucking hover-mountains.

[Anonymous No.2464313]

>>2464306
Have they looked and confirmed their absence, or simply been unable to look? There is a big difference.

[Anonymous No.2464317]

>>2464261
I'm not about to dissect the logical fallacies in that post, but I will say that if you're going to make a movie about aliens, make them aliens, on an alien planet.

Don't make it so that the first flourishing world we are able to actually travel to is inhabited by things with combatible DNA that look like people. Don't make the planet have the same gravity and same surface pressure. Making the air merely unbreathable felt like cop out.

Queefing jellyfish would be stupid. Blue people with mind powers and floating rocks is 1940s B-movie sci-fi stupid.

Avatar was bad because it lacked plausibility and verisimilitude. And it was hailed as a masterpiece because people refuse to know any better.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2464320]

>>2464306

Not sure if serious.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464322]

>>2464306
Do you realize what thread you are posting in?

[Anonymous No.2464324]

>>2464303
>Those are hardly worth complaining about given that the movie doesn't use artificial gravity or FTL.
Seems like you have a very narrow metric. I bet you loved 2001 though. And I agree, it was a good movie. Even better book.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464330]

>>2464309
1) Read my entire post.
2) You damn well better compare it to other sci-fi movies. If not then you aren't complaining about the movie, you are complaining about the genre. It would be like someone who hate Nascar complaining that the way a particular driver drives is too boring despite him thinking every other driver is even more boring.

[Anonymous No.2464351]

>>2464303
The first 10 minutes of Avatar was the most realistic sci-fi to hit the silver screen in a long time. The rest was asinine.

A movie doesn't have to be realistic to be good, but then, make it obvious that it's not realistic. Don't portray it as unwaveringly plausible.

>>2464293
Nope. Life on Earth is made of the four most abundant elements that produce 1, 2, 3, and 4 chemical bonds. Nonliving chemicals can duplicate. The sun may be a little uncommon because it's not binary and it's G class, but it's certainly not a fluke. Amino acids don't take much effort to make.

You can make some outrageous claims about aliens, but saying there is no life elsewhere is pretty uneducated.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464353]

>>2464324
I thought 2001 was cool, but not amazing simply because it was to artsy. Blade Runner, now that was a hard sci-fi for the ages.

>narrow
How so? Someone was complaining that Avatar wasn't hard enough. I pointed out that mind links and an only semi-explained geological phenomena hardly compare to the all too commonly used FTL. Have you even read the description of the Venture Star on the Avatar wiki? It's one of the most thought out ships in the history of big budget science movies.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464360]

>>2464351
I already narrowed the complaints down to just two. If those two are all that you are complaining about then you simply dislike the genre, not the movie in particular.

[Anonymous No.2464363]

>>2464353
Just saying that you mentioned anti-gravity and FTL travel like they are your pet peeves. Nothing wrong with that, though.

[Anonymous No.2464371]

What we need to do is rapidly research life extension and mind uploading. The world needs to fully embrace Transhumanism. Then maybe our great grand children will live to visit these exoplanets!

[Anonymous No.2464372]

>>2464353
And yet we get very little exposure to the ship and its features during the movie.

I agree that the SHIP was well thought out. That's really where my respect ends however.

2001 was kickass, and their spacesuit and airless scenes were amazing and believable. But it was made in the 60s, and here were are in 2011, struggling to find any other movie that matches its believability.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464379]

>>2464353
I really love the Venture Star.
:3

It deploys a sail which Sol based lasers use to propel the ship. The hind shield protects the ship from the laser. Once it is done accelerating the ship spins around and begins decelerating itself. Once it does its business it accelerates itself back to Earth, spins around, and lets lasers decelerate the ship until it reaches Earth.

[Anonymous No.2464382]

>starts as a interesting thread about amazing astronomical discovery
>degenerates into "lets troll /x/" and avatar thread in under 200 replies

/sci/, you are fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.2464386]

>>2464360
I don't want to say that I dislike the entire genre, but it looks like I probably will. At least I KNOW I hated Avatar, and I have reasons.

I'm not talking about the entire genre here, but it is called "SCIENCE fiction" after all. It should at least strive to make the "science" part plausible. It seems to live up to the title "Fantasy Involving Space" a whole lot more.

[Anonymous No.2464398]

>>2464382
Thanks for the contribution. Come back anytime.

[Anonymous No.2464399]

>>2464386

Lurking /lit/ fag here!
Your problem is that your just watching movies. You need to find good scifi books. IB4: 2001 was a book.

[Anonymous No.2464402]

>>2464382
hey, the first 180 posts were pretty good

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464403]

>>2464363
My pet peeves are doing things that are physically impossible. Avatar simply stretches physics by using unobtanium, but like I said, that is my one use of the Get Out of Jail Free Card for Avatar. There is nothing else in Avatar that would qualify as physically impossible that isn't somewhat explained.

Mountains = partially explained if easily worked around.
Avatar Program = not explained at all but not physically impossible.

I bet we could count the number of big budget sci-fi movies that are more physically possible than Avatar on both hands, perhaps one hand.

To help you guys keep this post in perspective, I'm simply arguing that if one is complaining about the hardness of Avatar's science then one isn't complaining about the movie, one is complaining about the genre. Avatar is so much better when it comes to how little BS they try and slide in compared to nearly all other competitors. Can we agree on that?

[Anonymous No.2464409]

>>2464399

Second your = you're

Fixed!

[Anonymous No.2464413]

Guys I think I figured out FTL.

[Anonymous No.2464415]

>>2464399
OK sure. But I have a lot of books on my plate at the moment which happen to be science OR fiction.

My problem is that movies have problems. It's not arbitrary.

>/lit/ fag here!
>your just watching movies.
>/lit/
>your

:-/

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464421]

>>2464382
Are you that /x/tacle that was defending /x/'s honor way back? One /x/ "science is a sham" conspiracy theorist trying to pawn off BS theories on us being responded to with reasons why the theories are BS and science is not a sham cannot be held against /sci/.

Sage because this is off topic.

[Anonymous No.2464422]

>>2464415
/lit/ != smart

[Anonymous No.2464424]

Its a bummer we will probably never encounter extrasolar life in our lifetimes.

[Anonymous No.2464430]

>>2464409
At least you caught it. Far better than most.

>>2464403
If what you're saying is true, then perhaps Avatar was beginning to take steps in the right direction?

I'm not going to like it more in the same way that a fuckup student shouldn't deserve a more lenient grade than he earned just for showing unexpected improvement. But it's good to know.

[Anonymous No.2464437]

>>2464422
Uh huh. But "/lit/" implies they "read" which implies they won't made such mistakes. And look: he caught and corrected it.

[Anonymous No.2464447]

>>2464415
see
>>2464409

I just had a slight brain glitch, no biggie!

[Anonymous No.2464454]

>>2464447
Yes, you posted while I was still writing.
That's why
:-/
for concern.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464456]

>>2464386
Science fiction extends beyond movies. We are just talking about science fiction movies. You have a problem with one of the most believable science fiction movies out. You therefore dislike the genre.

And science fiction != hard science fiction. If you want actually hard science fiction then your only option is to watch 2001 and Bladerunner forever or switch to books. I suggest the Mars trilogy.

[Anonymous No.2464460]

>>2464421
No. I've never even been to /x/ and I don't plan to go there any time soon.

[Anonymous No.2464490]

I found Avatar entertaining. It had excellent CGI, some cool concepts and a *decent* story. Sure, the scientific accuracy could be a little dodgy, but who gives a shit? It's still entertaining. Sunshine is a prime example.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464499]

>>2464490
Sunshine is one of my all time favorite movies.

[Anonymous No.2464537]

never saw avatar, is it good?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464539]

>>2464537
Yes.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2464542]

>>2464537

[Anonymous No.2464545]

>>2464537
shitty.plain and simple

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464562]

>>2464545
You are crazy. The science is harder than pretty much all competitors in the science fiction movie genre. If you are complaining about the themes then that's like, your opinion, man.

[Anonymous No.2464653]

>>2464562
>a little less shitty than shit

[Anonymous No.2464866]

>>2464499
fuck yeah
i love Sunshine, would've been perfect IMO if (SPOILER) the crazed captain wasn't still alive when they visited the first ship

[Anonymous No.2464873]

>>2464866
Well that would have destroyed the climax and the themes. The movie wouldn't have been good.

[Anonymous No.2464878]

There is no life on any one of them.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464895]

>>2464878
Wanna fight about it?

[Anonymous No.2464899]

>>2464562
>avatar
>hard sci fi
>wtfamireading.jpg

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2464902]

>>2464899
harder != hard

[Anonymous No.2464921]

>>2464873
>The movie wouldn't have been good.
It never was good, it was based upon retarded science and the captain and all the bullshit drama didn't help much.

[Anonymous No.2464980]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.2464997]

I went to see it for Sigourney Weaver, would eat my way through kilometers of shit for that

It was worth it, but I was near my limits

[Anonymous No.2465006]

>>2463464

500 Earth years. Time is not linear noob. In the spaceship it wouldn't be 500 years.

[Anonymous No.2465138]

>>2463464
Go go at ~90% the speed of light
???
PROFIT!!!

AND

(
Expand human lifespan to ~500 years
???
PROFIT!!!

OR

Stasis for ~500 years
???
PROFIT!!!
)

Bound to happen in our lifetime

[Anonymous No.2465934]

Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first
Maybe we're the first

[Samefag !SHjzCSZsqE No.2465938]

>>2465934
Life arose really quickly on earth
Our planet is a cosmic newfag
Oldfags everywhere
Oldfags with the right chemistry probably got life just as fast
It's unlikely we're the first

[Anonymous No.2465953]

>>2465938
But the oldfags are only similar to us in a couple of ways. All we can say is "this planet could contain liquid water on its surface", not that it does. We can say it is in the habitable zone, not that it's likely to be inhabited.

Insufficient data to conclude the probability of other Earth like civilizations without just guessing some of the variables.

[Anonymous No.2465957]

We should start on Mars.

[Anonymous No.2466208]

1. Aliens don't exist. Latching onto "coulds" and "maybes" won't get you anywhere.

2. Faster than light travel is impossible. Yes, at light speed, getting somewhere 500 light years away takes 500 years. Not for you, no, but for everyone else. So you won't ever see someone from your time again, and everyone here will have probably forgotten about you.

3. The Alcubiere Drive DOES NOT WORK. Fuck.

4. No warps of any kind will get us there.

5. Anyone ever read that story that was written, about aliens who monitor earth? They monitor earth and see us in the stone age. They come for a visit. By the time they get here, they end up smack dab in the middle of WWII. Anything we see of them isn't happening anymore.

6. This is not science. This is not theoretical science. This is speculative science... and science fiction. Go to /lit/ or /popsci/

[Anonymous No.2466271]

>>2466208
Why so negative?

[Anonymous No.2467892]

I love this thread.

Even the /x/ visitor I completely agree with, unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.2467915]

>>2466208

>1. Aliens don't exist. Latching onto "coulds" and "maybes" won't get you anywhere.

highly unlikely, but i don't care enough to argue.

>2. Faster than light travel is impossible. Yes, at light speed, getting somewhere 500 light years away takes 500 years. Not for you, no, but for everyone else. So you won't ever see someone from your time again, and everyone here will have probably forgotten about you.

probably, what little physics i know (and that's not a lot i major in computer science) faster then light travel goes against the laws of nature (literally).
we might, in the future, after some amazing new discovery, be able to travel faster then light.
but that to is highly unlikely.

>3. The Alcubiere Drive DOES NOT WORK. Fuck.

yep.

>4. No warps of any kind will get us there.

warp doesn't exist so... ye.
what's your point?

>5. Anyone ever read that story that was written, about aliens who monitor earth? They monitor earth and see us in the stone age. They come for a visit. By the time they get here, they end up smack dab in the middle of WWII. Anything we see of them isn't happening anymore.

this is true, but it's all about time, if what we are seeing is say 500 light years ago what we are seeing happned 500 years ago.
so it is happened (from the perspective of stars and planets) just recently

>6. This is not science. This is not theoretical science. This is speculative science... and science fiction. Go to /lit/ or /popsci/

Kepler has good solid science behind it.
what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.2467919]

I think capcha is trying to name one of them.

[Anonymous No.2467920]

>>2466208
>Latching onto "coulds" and "maybes" won't get you anywhere.
You seem pretty comfortable using absolutes asshat

>So you won't ever see someone from your time again, and everyone here will have probably forgotten about you.
Boo fucking hoo, cry me a river pissant

Hundreds of millions of people on this planet have nothing to lose and no one to leave behind, so fuck you

Read >>2465138

>>2466271
Probably a faget