Hindsight when we meet aliens

Michael's Black Son

Blanket Jackson
Supporter
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
54,150
Reputation
16,193
Daps
236,911
Reppin
New York City & Neverland Ranch
Personally I think we're very dumb as a species. Instead of trying to improve life for our kind, we find petty reasons to fight and kill each other(race, religion, resources, money etc.) An outside threat is probably the only way we'd truly try to work together as a species and that's only because our survival would be at risk. Aliens would probably look at us like: :what: These stupid motherfukkers out here living that good life and still managing to fight amongst themselves while we out here trying to find resources and a habitable planet to ensure the survival of our species :camby:You stupid mofos don't deserve this planet, we taking ova.

Real talk. As a species we are VERY dumb. Think about how many centuries have been wasted on believing in religion and religion related things. With all that's out there in the universe/other galaxies, you'd think that more effort/resources would be thrown into technology and space/time travel.

Instead we're figuring out how to spy on each other and accurately guide a bomb into an enemy territory with dropping it on them in person. Is earth really that great (with all the famine, diseases, social issues) that cats are super dedicated to staying here and waiting for jesus to come "back" and fix everything. Such a premise is so asinine.

If there's no hope in discovering the true meaning of life, which I don't think we're meant to know, then I'd rather be out traveling the cosmos seeing things no other human will ever see.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2013
Messages
40,978
Reputation
6,272
Daps
108,408
Reppin
Birmingham, Alabama
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-univer...zones-or-did-the-universe-know-we-were-coming

Please go read what the Golidlocks zone actually is and stop displaying ignorance

LMAO ok how am I displaying ignorance, when you're the dumb ass acting like 11 billion habitable planets is a small number.

Secondly since you don't like the dailymail lets try something you might actually heed.



http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/it-might-be-time-we-look-for-superhabitable-exoplanets

When we talk about habitable exoplanets, we talk a lot about the planets’ distance from their parent star because the star’s light is a main source of heat. The habitable zone, loosely, is determined on the inner edge at the point where the moist runaway greenhouse effect destroys a planet through desiccation and on the outer limit by the point where carbon dioxide freezes and turns the planet into a permanent snowball. But it’s not that simple, because stars have life cycles and are of different types. Stars vary in terms of size and brightness, meaning the habitable world around a star can change over the course of its lifetime.

And there are other factors to do with the planet that affect its habitability. Like tidal heating, when a planet’s interior is stressed by the gravitational effects of one or many other bodies. Tidal heating could warm a planet in its star’s habitable zone to the point where the runaway greenhouse effect takes over. Tidal locking, when a planet has one side permanently facing its star, could similarly render a planet inhospitable. The temperature extremes could wreak havoc on whatever atmosphere a planet might have. Changes to a planet’s orbit through some traumatic event, a change in a planet’s axial tilt, or even something simple like the ratio of land to water on the planet’s surface all affect climate and atmosphere, potentially making planets in a star’s habitable zone ill suited for life.

But these phenomena that are detrimental to planets in one orbit could be beneficial in another. Imagine moons orbiting gas giant planets, sort of like Jupiter and its dozens of moons (there are 50 confirmed, another 18 awaiting confirmation). Those moons being so far from their planet’s host star wouldn’t get much light or heart from the star, but they could get light and heat reflected off their host planet. And if a moon is close enough to its giant planet, gravitational forces could lead to tidal heating, and rather that produce a runaway greenhouse effect, in this case it could heat the moon to the point of habitability. This is one of the ways a moon outside a star’s habitable zone could be habitable.
 

Poitier

My Words Law
Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
69,412
Reputation
15,489
Daps
246,406
LMAO ok how am I displaying ignorance, when you're the dumb ass acting like 11 billion habitable planets is a small number.

Secondly since you don't like the dailymail lets try something you might actually heed.


I link the words of one of the worlds leading physicist and you counter with Vice magazine :laff::laff::laff::laff::laff:

Have a good day sir :pachaha:
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2013
Messages
40,978
Reputation
6,272
Daps
108,408
Reppin
Birmingham, Alabama
I link the words of one of the worlds leading physicist and you counter with Vice magazine :laff::laff::laff::laff::laff:

Have a good day sir :pachaha:
In second grade, my teacher made a statement that literally shocked me to the core. I have not forgotten it after all these years. She said, "God so loved the Earth that he put the Earth just right from the Sun -- Not too far or the oceans would freeze over and not too close or the oceans would boil." This was an epiphany for me. I thought "That's right - The Earth IS just right from the Sun!" This was an amazing observation, my first exposure to an astronomical argument. I could see that there was some truth in her statement, since Mars is a frozen desert, and Venus is scorching hot. So the earth is in the Goldilocks Zone region of space, the right distance from the sun, just right for life.

But today, I can view my second grade teacher's statement from a different point of view. Today, astronomers have identified over 500 planets orbiting other stars, and they are all too close or too far from their mother star. Most of them, we think, cannot support life as we know it. So it is unnecessary to invoke God.

But now, cosmologists are facing this paradox again, but from a cosmic perspective. It turns out that the fundamental parameters of the universe appear to be perfectly "fine-tuned." For example, if the nuclear force were any stronger, the sun would have simply burned out billions of years ago, and if it were any weaker the sun wouldn't have ignited to begin with. The Nuclear Force is tuned Just Right. Similarly, if gravity were any stronger, the Universe would have most likely collapsed in on itself in a big crunch; and if it were any weaker, everything would have simply frozen over in a big freeze. The Gravitational Force is Just Right.

This begs the question of how many of the Goldilocks zones there actually are. If you begin to count them, you will soon realize that there are so many of these instances, it simply boggles the mind. The chance that our universe would be randomly placed in so many Goldilocks zones has been compared to a jet airliner being torn apart by a tornado and then suddenly reassembling itself by chance.

The paradox is: why does our universe reside in so many of these Goldilocks zones? Is it because God loved the universe so much that he chose to place it precisely in all these zones? Some theologians think so. They cannot believe that our universe is an accident. It almost appears as if the universe knew we were coming.

However, there is another interpretation. In the same way that astronomers have discovered over 500 (dead) solar systems, perhaps there are billions of parallel universes, most of them unsuitable for life. Our universe is special, only in the sense that it makes life possible for human beings who can contemplate this question. In many of these other universes, there is no intelligent life to ask this question. In these parallel universes, the nuclear force, the gravitational force, etc. are either too strong or too weak to allow for life. So it is a matter of luck that we happen to live in a universe compatible with life.

There are two philosophies that you can consider that are consistent with everything that we currently know and understand about the universe we live in. The first is the Copernican principle and the other is the Anthropic principle. The Copernican principle says that there really isn't anything special about humans or our place in the universe. There is nothing special about our existence in that we exist amongst billions of stars and perhaps millions of planets. We are puny and insignificant. The Anthropic principle is exactly the opposite in stating that we are indeed special, so special that we are among only a handful of universes that have intelligent life.

It turns out that all these philosophical questions have relevance today in the debate over string theory. String theory is supposed to be a theory of everything which can unify all physical laws. But the weakness of string theory is that it has many possible solutions, perhaps an infinite number of them. Since string theory is a theory of universes, it means that there are perhaps an infinite number of parallel universes. If so, then which one do we live in? It seems that string theory cannot predict which universe we occupy, since there is no principle to distinguish between them.

For example, the amount of dark energy in the universe is huge, making up 73% of all matter/energy in the universe. String theory can easily generate dark energy. But it can generate an infinite number of possible universes with different amounts of dark energy. So which universe is ours?

There is one school of thought that says that string theory, plus a version of the Anthropic Principle, can predict the properties of the universe, so everything is okay. This makes some scientists uneasy (since the Anthropic principle does not appear to be typical scientific principle, since it seems to have no predictive power.) However, this might be the ultimate resolution of the problem. String theory predicts an infinite number of universes, but we need some Anthropic principle to determine our universe.

(My own point of view, however, is that string theory is not in its final form. It has been evolving ever since it was discovered by accident in 1968. What we need, I think, is a higher version of the theory. This is what I am working on now. To be continued...)



SHOW ME WHERE THE fukk HE DISAGREED WITH WHAT I STATED. dude said he's working on some shyt. That doesn't even support your argument.

Dude basically said. well here's what I'm a do..and dipped. He didn't discredit any other thing I said dumb fukk.
 

Chris.B

Banned
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
18,921
Reputation
-4,645
Daps
21,895
Personally I think we're very dumb as a species. Instead of trying to improve life for our kind, we find petty reasons to fight and kill each other(race, religion, resources, money etc.) An outside threat is probably the only way we'd truly try to work together as a species and that's only because our survival would be at risk. Aliens would probably look at us like: :what: These stupid motherfukkers out here living that good life and still managing to fight amongst themselves while we out here trying to find resources and a habitable planet to ensure the survival of our species :camby:You stupid mofos don't deserve this planet, we taking ova.
you assume aliens are more advanced that us.

There has been no proof so far of life outside earth.
We are the only ones.

It's may be improbable(not impossible) for Jesus to be traveling around planets saving nikkas
 

l3lackstarr

In my observatory
Joined
Jan 11, 2014
Messages
1,541
Reputation
1,079
Daps
5,077
Reppin
Alpha-Centauri
Real talk. As a species we are VERY dumb. Think about how many centuries have been wasted on believing in religion and religion related things. With all that's out there in the universe/other galaxies, you'd think that more effort/resources would be thrown into technology and space/time travel.

Instead we're figuring out how to spy on each other and accurately guide a bomb into an enemy territory with dropping it on them in person. Is earth really that great (with all the famine, diseases, social issues) that cats are super dedicated to staying here and waiting for jesus to come "back" and fix everything. Such a premise is so asinine.

If there's no hope in discovering the true meaning of life, which I don't think we're meant to know, then I'd rather be out traveling the cosmos seeing things no other human will ever see.
Indeed... I think I say this too much actually. It's a lot to see and plenty to learn
 

Grizz

Rookie
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
Messages
191
Reputation
90
Daps
344
Food for thought here, We class each other aliens but still the same damn human race.
What difference would it be if aliens managed to camouflage into our way of living and been here for ages but we don't even know it :ohhh:
 

aXiom

Maximized Potential
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
11,664
Reputation
8,516
Daps
69,734
Reppin
Parc fermé
you assume aliens are more advanced that us.

There has been no proof so far of life outside earth.
We are the only ones.

It's may be improbable(not impossible) for Jesus to be traveling around planets saving nikkas
You'd have to be pretty simple minded and arrogant to have some understanding of how large the universe is and still doubt there are other life forms out there.

And any life form that can master intergalactic travel is already more advance than us. Please understand that a few hundred years ago we thought the earth was flat. Our arrogance and stupidity can only be overcome by knowledge, which comes with age. Can you imagine how primitive we'll look to our future generations 3-400 years from now?
 
Top