Posted on 07/03/2003 10:22:13 AM PDT by RightWhale
BTW. That's not a cheap shot. It illustrates a point.
Isn't that the distance in Star Trek to that resort planet, Risa or whatever?
The range is from 0.0 to 0.92 or so, but there seem to be a number around 0.3. Somebody could chart the data if they are interested. Systematic effects was my first thought. There are a variety of methods for detection, perhaps some favor particular results. It's a valid question.
It's a level of complexity. There is lower complexity--chemicals and rock, and there is higher complexity--behavior and society. The laws of physics operate on the very lowest levels and on every level all the way up in some manner. It's not going to
With current technology -- warp drives need not apply -- we could build a giant rocket that is propelled by hydrogen bomb detonations behind a pusher plate. This concept was actually researched by the government in the 1950s and 60s and showed promised for interstellar flight (though it couldn't be operated within a million miles of Earth, and we've yet to travel a million miles from Earth, so it still isn't practical . . . but it is possible).
Anyhow, maximum speed for nuclear pulse was three percent light speed. Thus it would take three thousand years to travel ninety light years.
A multi-generational city-sized space ark would be appropriate.
That's going to take significant time to build even before the expedition sets out. We better start today.
That would sure louse up Einstein's equation E=mc2 showing energy corresponding to a mass "m" at rest. "c" is the speed of light. "E" is the total energy of a freely moving particle. If mass disappears (like in a nuclear reaction) the equivalent energy must appear. If light speed changes, so do nuclear reactions. Stars run on nuclear fusion. This presents a problem...if the speed of light were slower in the past, fusion would have been less energetic. Stars might not have even gotten "started".
All this presents a conundrum, unless Einstein's theory is seriously flawed. It has held up so far under many years of rigorous high-energy physics tests.
What part of intelligent life did you not get? That was my definition.
The point is, we are here. We are in the universe. We are definitely not confined to this little orb on which we find ourselves. Given enough time, life will be spread all throughout the galaxy (if not the universe) simply because that's the way we are. So while your position might be true in the here and now- it is demonstrably not going to be true forever. So it isn't a reliable position around which to build a belief system.
Second. Regardless of whether you believe in creation or evolution, it is a perfectly rational conclusion at which to arrive to assume that there is more life out there somewhere. If evolution is a natural occurance, it would be more surprising that it didn't happen in other places (given the unfathomable size of the universe) than to learn that it did. Likewise, if we were created by a higher intelligence (aside from the fact that its existence would constitute life outside the confines of Earth) it would be totally natural to assume this creator fostered life elsewhere. It's not to say that assumption would be correct- but it would be totally rational to assume he/she/it did.
Given the vast scope of the universe, life elsewhere in it is a sure bet. If you're playing the odds, life is where you put your money.
Yes; Jupiter-like planets in a Jupiter-like orbits are like "Hoover's" of the solar system, vacuuming up all the detritus that could end life as we know it on Earth.
So essentially, they are thought of as being a necessary condition for life to form and flourish on an Earth-like planet.
You left something off there?
At any rate:
The laws of physics operate on the very lowest levels and on every level all the way up in some manner.
With you totally there.
Hypothesis, assumption, speculation, maybe.
Conclusion? Hardly.
Oh yeah. It is my conclusion that there is life out there. Like it or not.
Apparently. Was interrupted by the real world and simply sent without editing.
When you accelerate a body to relativistic speeds, you come upon some real problems. First, you are blue-shifting all background and stellar radiation into the high-energy realm. Somehow one must shield the delicate life-forms aboard from this constant blizzard of gamma and x-rays.
Second, if any matter is in the path of the craft, how will the craft avoid it? Almost as soon as its photons arrive to announce its presence the object itself will be hot on the heels of the "message".
Third, time will shorten considerably (depending on how close to c the craft accelerates). 6 months' ship travel time to HD70642 at 99.9% c still will be 90+ years here on Earth. Friends and relatives of the astronauts will be long gone when they return.
Sure, I prefer the physics of Star Trek, but I don't think it's practical; it may not even be possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.