What? Have you even read this thread? I can see why nobody respects your opinion.
What if theres Another Earth?
- Thread starter steveda19
- Start date
What? Have you even read this thread? I can see why nobody respects your opinion.
Increased gravity would be an issue for colonists long term, assuming they could ever get there at all.
Be careful of jumping from belief as a result of rational hypothesis to belief as a result of faith without evidence. It does the sciences no good and invites quite a lot of silly notions.
I am not a scientist, and this is not a science blog. What I say here stays here.
That attitude will win you reams of respect. Neither your credentials or lack thereof, nor the nature of this site changes making unfounded pronouncements as fact any more respectable than someone claiming aliens abducted them to their moon base for an anal probe. No one disputes your posting here, but be prepared to back up assertions and pronouncements with something better than 'I believe'. And, trying to deflect criticism by dissembling will do you no favors.
I don't like your tone, and I don't like where this is going. I have learned from painful experience when another user is targeting someone they disagree with, and making every effort to discredit that person.
(I was at Memory Alpha, until I ran into a similar situation. I have a pretty accurate read on what is happening. I deactivated my account, with the intention of never returning to that site. Gov. Karnstein, if I see your username, I will not get into a discussion with you nor will I participate in that thread, for there can be no discussion and you will be hostile to me. And, if I see you coming after me on another thread, I will request that my account be deactivated on this blog. The Internet is not a safe place and I don't trust you.)
(I was at Memory Alpha, until I ran into a similar situation. I have a pretty accurate read on what is happening. I deactivated my account, with the intention of never returning to that site. Gov. Karnstein, if I see your username, I will not get into a discussion with you nor will I participate in that thread, for there can be no discussion and you will be hostile to me. And, if I see you coming after me on another thread, I will request that my account be deactivated on this blog. The Internet is not a safe place and I don't trust you.)
Gov criticized the content of your post saying "belief" doesn't really matter much when it comes to science. I don't think his intent was to "come after you".
I understand that you felt attacked but telling people "I don't trust you." isn't really helping either.
That said I'd appreciate if we could get back to constructive discussion, relax the tone a bit and give each other the benefit of the doubt.
I understand that you felt attacked but telling people "I don't trust you." isn't really helping either.
That said I'd appreciate if we could get back to constructive discussion, relax the tone a bit and give each other the benefit of the doubt.
I didn't say that I didn't trust people. I said that I didn't trust that person. When a person attacks another on the Internet, it can lead to distrust. What else are they capable of? A person can hope for the best, which is probably nothing.
Now, what I said, I say that there are worlds that do support life (Earth-like), for that is the way of nature to have more than one example of something. Humans aren't alone in their capacity to have self-awareness - dolphins, elephants, and crows have this same capacity.
My reservation is this, how would we know a world is Earth-like (a world capable of supporting life)? Scientists might be able to develop an atmospheric study of the world; however, our current level of technology denies us the ability to verify the planet does have life. The planet might have the right atmospheric ingredients, but be devoid of life. (That is a possibility.)
Now, what I said, I say that there are worlds that do support life (Earth-like), for that is the way of nature to have more than one example of something. Humans aren't alone in their capacity to have self-awareness - dolphins, elephants, and crows have this same capacity.
My reservation is this, how would we know a world is Earth-like (a world capable of supporting life)? Scientists might be able to develop an atmospheric study of the world; however, our current level of technology denies us the ability to verify the planet does have life. The planet might have the right atmospheric ingredients, but be devoid of life. (That is a possibility.)
Unfortunately, it's not the way of statistics. So far we only have one example of a planet that supports life (Earth). You can't extrapolate from a sample of 1.
Though I will admit, intuition tells me that there is life out there. The universe is too vast for there not to be, but that is just a feeling that cannot be backed up by science.
Probes. And patience.
That wasn't an attack, it was a critique. If I decided to attack you, it would be clear and easy to tell. I am sorry you felt attacked.
As Rojohen mentioned, we have only a sample of one planet with life, any extrapolations from a sample of one are of no value. While other habitable worlds are a reasonable supposition given what's known about the universe, suppositions are otherwise worthless without facts to back them up.
As mentioned by Rojohen, again, more satellite telescopes, probes, and patience.
If we had fusion ramjet technology, we could try sending probes to planets we suspect could support life.
I suppose that some sort of nuclear-derived propulsion, with enough fuel to reach it's destination would do.
Relativistic speeds are optional, given that we'd still have to wait decades, likely centuries for her to even reach her destination anyways.
Maybe a probe's systems will be prone to breaking down slower at relativistic speeds?
There is still the issue of the fact that a signal would take centuries, depending on the distance, even millennia to reach us, just to confirm whether a planet is habitable? I suppose if the signal could be light based, it could be decades.
If only we could send and receive communiques faster than light.
Of course, I have to admit, we'd be hard pressed to invest in something, that we wouldn't receive any result from, for decades at best.
I suppose that some sort of nuclear-derived propulsion, with enough fuel to reach it's destination would do.
Relativistic speeds are optional, given that we'd still have to wait decades, likely centuries for her to even reach her destination anyways.
Maybe a probe's systems will be prone to breaking down slower at relativistic speeds?
There is still the issue of the fact that a signal would take centuries, depending on the distance, even millennia to reach us, just to confirm whether a planet is habitable? I suppose if the signal could be light based, it could be decades.
If only we could send and receive communiques faster than light.
Of course, I have to admit, we'd be hard pressed to invest in something, that we wouldn't receive any result from, for decades at best.
Is that like drinking a fine wine or having a fine dining experience? My wife always tells me I never do anything on the cheap.
If we could distinguish what stars came from the same nebula as the Sun, those stars would seem to be the most likely candidates for supporting life we'd have any hope of relating to, even if contact was possible. And I wouldn't pretend to know or imagine what consequences that could have for us, beyond those that are purely philosophical.
As I have been reminded constantly, we are talking about facts. So, why are we discussing this subject? It's speculation and whatever is said is not supported by the scientific facts as known at present.
There is talk about some major satellites being proposed with the purpose of looking for Earth-size worlds. Of course, these projects may never get past the development stage because the governments may abandon the projects. The probable causes would be budget cuts and an apathy for science.
I think that when scientists do discover an Earth-size world, that it will be hyped and discussed briefly in the 24 hour news cycle, before the news channels move on to other subjects.
There is talk about some major satellites being proposed with the purpose of looking for Earth-size worlds. Of course, these projects may never get past the development stage because the governments may abandon the projects. The probable causes would be budget cuts and an apathy for science.
I think that when scientists do discover an Earth-size world, that it will be hyped and discussed briefly in the 24 hour news cycle, before the news channels move on to other subjects.
While the presence of life in the variety of extremes found on Earth can give us an appreciation of the possible tenaciousness of life forms, it tells us only how widely evolution can go on Earth and tells us nothing of how life might start at all, or the conditions needed for it to start either here or elsewhere. Finding life on Europa or some other part of the solar system would be a great help toward postulating with some confidence on that subject.
Unless there being life at one of the most extreme habitats may itself be the clue that its origin was there. Within the past few decades, hydrothermal vents have been proposed as the place where life began.
Similar threads
- Poll
