Sign In
Register
Help
Alright I was sitting in my class and my teacher has this poster on the wall that says Are we lone?.. Well here is what I think and I want other peoples opinions.
First off I think we are alone because well we havent found anything; All this aliens bs is just crap honestly. Second The reason why I think we are alone is because of Time differences. Ever herd of Rippless in time. Well my 8 grade teacher was talking about them. Its were 2 time periods(maybe more) Merge together. This is how I think we see ghost. With ripples in time said I think thats why we are alone because the other lifeforms are in a different time period. Scientist say there is life on mars, And that they found fossils on a crater that came from mars. Now with that in mind It strikes me as odd..Doesnt cells come from prexisting cells and isn't cells the basic unit of life....
Well if anyone has any comments please post.
We Are Alone... Are we alone...
#1
SuicideKing 
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 117
- Joined: 30-November 04
Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:15 AM
MultiQuote
#2
HaloD MC
- The Legend
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 2590
- Joined: 01-August 04
Posted 25 January 2005 - 05:02 AM
I think that once apon a time we werent alone. But evenchally died because of living environment. We cant live any where else except earth. I believe that there once were things on mars and jupiter and uranus (haha i make my self laugh). But now a days i think its munbo jumbo.
I wrestle.
Not simply with my opponent.
I wrestle with demons of doubt.
With my past failures.
With my exhaustion.
With my injuries.
With my anonymity.
With the unrelenting voice that tells me to stop.
But I am a wrestler.
And one thing will always be certain
I WILL BE VICTORIOUS!
#3
_TJ_
- Bottlecap Forever
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 3619
- Joined: 19-March 04
Posted 25 January 2005 - 10:41 AM
We cannot be alone. You're telling me that we are the only ones in our solar system, or any other solar systems for that matter? If thats the case then what purpose does space have? Why is it there? Waste of space isn't it?
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt
#5
_TJ_
- Bottlecap Forever
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 3619
- Joined: 19-March 04
Posted 25 January 2005 - 07:33 PM
QUOTE(charlie @ Jan 25 2005, 05:30 PM)
waste of space 
literally
literally
Hmm, I never noticed that pun. It wasn't intended by the way.
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt
#6 Guest_metroid_dragon_*
Posted 25 January 2005 - 07:34 PM
thats a stupid thesis.
Human life can only survive on a class M planet. in our solar system of 9 planets we have 1. thats 11.11111111111111% of the planets in our solar system can support Human life. there are Trillions of Stars, now with those odds, thats a decent amounf of planets that can support Human Life. on top of that we have billions of types of life on earth, so this is a pretty good chance of life again.
on top of that there is an infinit amount of dimensions in which who knows what can live and were.
and in addition to that, what proof do we have that life cannot exist outside a class M atmosphere? life could thrive in the cold of Eropia. just like it thrives in the heat of some places of earth. Life could thrive in any enviornment. we cannot be ones to judge where and when it will appear.
"Europa stands today as one of the only places in our solar system that was can identify as having (or having had) all ingredients necessary to spawn life.
Because the layer of surface-ice stands 150 to 300 kilometers thick, a global, ice-covered ocean of liquid water may exist underneath. The volcanism within it's core would create an energy source for possible life"
-Bruce M. Jakosky Scientific American
this basically explains why Europa is a prime possibility for Life to Exist. much more plausible than even Mars.
Human life can only survive on a class M planet. in our solar system of 9 planets we have 1. thats 11.11111111111111% of the planets in our solar system can support Human life. there are Trillions of Stars, now with those odds, thats a decent amounf of planets that can support Human Life. on top of that we have billions of types of life on earth, so this is a pretty good chance of life again.
on top of that there is an infinit amount of dimensions in which who knows what can live and were.
and in addition to that, what proof do we have that life cannot exist outside a class M atmosphere? life could thrive in the cold of Eropia. just like it thrives in the heat of some places of earth. Life could thrive in any enviornment. we cannot be ones to judge where and when it will appear.
"Europa stands today as one of the only places in our solar system that was can identify as having (or having had) all ingredients necessary to spawn life.
Because the layer of surface-ice stands 150 to 300 kilometers thick, a global, ice-covered ocean of liquid water may exist underneath. The volcanism within it's core would create an energy source for possible life"
-Bruce M. Jakosky Scientific American
this basically explains why Europa is a prime possibility for Life to Exist. much more plausible than even Mars.
#7
SuicideKing
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 117
- Joined: 30-November 04
Posted 25 January 2005 - 08:28 PM
First off, You said that there is all the ingredients to make life........meaning there isnt life..made....yet... And im not saying that there isnt life out there what im saying is that we are in a different time period, and when a ripple in time happends thats why you see ghost. The burmuda triangle for instance I have read that the reason for the compass is that there is gas pockets that let it offf when you fly over them that set the compass off and can sink ships in 5 secs! Also turn off engines but the reason for not finding these ships is mabye because there is a ripple in time that sets you back 1000s of years. That is why we are alone.
#8 Guest_metroid_dragon_*
Posted 25 January 2005 - 10:30 PM
the word "ingredients" was specifically used because we dont know if life exists there or not. we know life can exist, but we dont know if it already does, there could be entire sentiant races under the ice of Europia.
also, i also watched that show and have read many books about the theory of methane being the culprit for the bermuda triangle. and it makes sence to me.
methane can stall a vintige plane engine in a few seconds flat with less than 1% of the atmosphere being methane.
methane also is lighter than air and water causeing ships to lose bouyancy and planes to lose lift. this is why ships sink in a few seconds and flanes crash spontainously.
another explanation was huge bubbles that are cause by the methane, the bubble can sever a ship in 2 if it's even half the size as the ship it strikes.
i dont see what proff there is about a ripple in time, it's an interesting and intreging theory, but has absolutly no backup for it.
as for not being able to find the ships, we are finding thousands of ships in the bermuda triangle. they dont just disapear at all, we have found pretty much every major ship and plane squadron with the exception of Flight 19 and the USS Cyclops.
also, i also watched that show and have read many books about the theory of methane being the culprit for the bermuda triangle. and it makes sence to me.
methane can stall a vintige plane engine in a few seconds flat with less than 1% of the atmosphere being methane.
methane also is lighter than air and water causeing ships to lose bouyancy and planes to lose lift. this is why ships sink in a few seconds and flanes crash spontainously.
another explanation was huge bubbles that are cause by the methane, the bubble can sever a ship in 2 if it's even half the size as the ship it strikes.
i dont see what proff there is about a ripple in time, it's an interesting and intreging theory, but has absolutly no backup for it.
as for not being able to find the ships, we are finding thousands of ships in the bermuda triangle. they dont just disapear at all, we have found pretty much every major ship and plane squadron with the exception of Flight 19 and the USS Cyclops.
#9
charlie
- I'll be back..
-
- Group: Banned
- Posts: 2875
- Joined: 02-October 04
Posted 26 January 2005 - 12:17 AM
QUOTE(_TJ_ @ Jan 25 2005, 05:33 PM)
Hmm, I never noticed that pun. It wasn't intended by the way.
lol, excuse the CORNY pun by me, just making ligh out of 'dark situations'
valued points there MD, and interestin thoughts
i wanna meet some other form of life, they might not be as unlike as we think
#10 Guest_metroid_dragon_*
Posted 26 January 2005 - 12:26 AM
well there are always the prediction of the galexy filled with humanoids. races similir to us in many ways. of course, this is also a way for sci-fi shows to make up new aliens often without having to rely on computer generated graphics or really large and strange costumes.
#11
SuicideKing
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 117
- Joined: 30-November 04
Posted 26 January 2005 - 02:52 AM
Sorry but I have always belieaved science over religion and I think we are the only ones. The ripple in time my teacher told me and I still cant find it either. Today as TheoneSephiroth and I were on the bus we were discussion this and One reason I think that lifeforms are not in our generation is because time moves slower in space and this is why nothing has evolved.
Yes I also watch the bermuda triangle thing Also...Thought I was the only one who likes that stuff(maybe you dont).
Yes I also watch the bermuda triangle thing Also...Thought I was the only one who likes that stuff(maybe you dont).
#12 Guest_metroid_dragon_*
Posted 26 January 2005 - 03:02 AM
i'm addicted to all forms of things such as the bermuda triangle, or paralellogram it should be called in all reality.
anyways, from a scientific point of view, i'm closer to science, your theory is more along the lines of philosophy than science.
i'm basing my predictions on logic and the small amount of evidence we have.
yours seem to have no kind of backup at all to them, just the fact that it seems plausible, if far fetched, still plausible though.
anyways, from a scientific point of view, i'm closer to science, your theory is more along the lines of philosophy than science.
i'm basing my predictions on logic and the small amount of evidence we have.
yours seem to have no kind of backup at all to them, just the fact that it seems plausible, if far fetched, still plausible though.
#13 Guest_tzobell_*
Posted 26 January 2005 - 03:04 AM
well you very right in some way. We have not found other life forms on other planets so there is no real evidence that we are not alone. Yet the statistical chance of earth being the only place in the universe with life is extreamly low. Its much more likly that there are other planets with life on it.
#14
SuicideKing
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 117
- Joined: 30-November 04
Posted 26 January 2005 - 07:50 PM
Alright so your saying that me saying that time being slower in space is just a philosphy....Well Lets look at this.
expansion of space through time =gravity?
as I was contemplating the progression of time, I came to think that time does not move at all either forward or backwards or any which way that you might imagine. perhaps time exists at every moment... everywhere. this idea hit me when I was trying to factor in the expansion of the universe.
let's perform a thought experiment to give an anology...
imagine a circular pond of water that has the same depth at every point within (this will represent time, which remains unchanging in the absence of outside influence). drop a pebble into the exact center (this will represent the big bang). from this point a wave will propogate outwards (this will represent the expansion of the universe (for simplicity I will describe only a single wave) ).
this was the easy part to imagine. then I tried to imagine where gravity fits in. well, for there to be gravity, there must be a body which has mass. o.k. we all know this much; the greater the mass- the greater the gravity. but what exactly is gravity anyway? Einstein tells us that gravity is actually the curvature of space/time. this seems a reasonable enough explanation... but, how does gravity work to pull things inwards? I figure that mass has an inherent tendancy to remain in one place in time, while the force of the expansion of the universe tends to propell mass forward through time. this creates a resistance which causes space to curve around the body of mass (the degree of curvature depends upon the amount of mass that is trying to remain at a given point in time). perhaps Newtons' laws of motion also apply to the expansion of space where a body of mass is concerned (an object at rest tends to stay at rest and, a body in motion tends to stay in motion). in this case the body at rest is mass and the body in motion is space itself expanding.
this still leaves the question as to how gravity works to pull things in. let me explain. space is also trying to remain in one place in time, yet the force of the big-bang is propelling space through time. as this expansion encounters mass (which is trying to remain in one place in time) there arises a resistance between the expansion of space and the body of mass. this resistance curves space as the body of mass absorbs energy from the force of the expansion, thus slowing the rate of expansion in the local area of affect of the mass' tendancy to remain at a given point in time. as the force of the expansion continues outward through time, the area of space around the body of mass falls behind in time... which gives us the curvature of space around this body of mass as the rest of space continues on its merry way forward through time unhindered by mass. this is not to say that the body of mass is not also being propelled forward in time, it is... only at a slower rate than the expansion of space. this creates a depression in time (much like in the manner of the model of the curvature in space where you place a heavy ball on a rubber sheet). this depression in time allows a smaller body of mass to be "attracted to" a larger body of mass becuase there is less resistance to the outward expansion of space near the larger body of mass (which is trying to remain at one place in time)... thus allowing this smaller body of mass an easier way to remain in one place in time... in other words, it will take the path of least resistance in its' attempt to remain at that place in time.
now let's get extreme... consider a black hole. the mass of a black hole is greater than the resistance of the force of the expansion of space to such a degree that the black hole has actually been able to remain at one place in time. this is at the event horizon only (I will go into what happens inside of the event horizon later on in this thread). since space and time interact, the event horizon allows space to remain at the event horizon while as you get further from the event horizon space will encounter less resistance to the force of expansion through time. this is how we can percieve time as "slowing down" as we get closer to the event horizon.
Now with this in mind I honestly think that time moves slower in outer space then it does on earth..Making it so that other possible living things not fully developed....
So We are alone now....But things change all the time.
expansion of space through time =gravity?
as I was contemplating the progression of time, I came to think that time does not move at all either forward or backwards or any which way that you might imagine. perhaps time exists at every moment... everywhere. this idea hit me when I was trying to factor in the expansion of the universe.
let's perform a thought experiment to give an anology...
imagine a circular pond of water that has the same depth at every point within (this will represent time, which remains unchanging in the absence of outside influence). drop a pebble into the exact center (this will represent the big bang). from this point a wave will propogate outwards (this will represent the expansion of the universe (for simplicity I will describe only a single wave) ).
this was the easy part to imagine. then I tried to imagine where gravity fits in. well, for there to be gravity, there must be a body which has mass. o.k. we all know this much; the greater the mass- the greater the gravity. but what exactly is gravity anyway? Einstein tells us that gravity is actually the curvature of space/time. this seems a reasonable enough explanation... but, how does gravity work to pull things inwards? I figure that mass has an inherent tendancy to remain in one place in time, while the force of the expansion of the universe tends to propell mass forward through time. this creates a resistance which causes space to curve around the body of mass (the degree of curvature depends upon the amount of mass that is trying to remain at a given point in time). perhaps Newtons' laws of motion also apply to the expansion of space where a body of mass is concerned (an object at rest tends to stay at rest and, a body in motion tends to stay in motion). in this case the body at rest is mass and the body in motion is space itself expanding.
this still leaves the question as to how gravity works to pull things in. let me explain. space is also trying to remain in one place in time, yet the force of the big-bang is propelling space through time. as this expansion encounters mass (which is trying to remain in one place in time) there arises a resistance between the expansion of space and the body of mass. this resistance curves space as the body of mass absorbs energy from the force of the expansion, thus slowing the rate of expansion in the local area of affect of the mass' tendancy to remain at a given point in time. as the force of the expansion continues outward through time, the area of space around the body of mass falls behind in time... which gives us the curvature of space around this body of mass as the rest of space continues on its merry way forward through time unhindered by mass. this is not to say that the body of mass is not also being propelled forward in time, it is... only at a slower rate than the expansion of space. this creates a depression in time (much like in the manner of the model of the curvature in space where you place a heavy ball on a rubber sheet). this depression in time allows a smaller body of mass to be "attracted to" a larger body of mass becuase there is less resistance to the outward expansion of space near the larger body of mass (which is trying to remain at one place in time)... thus allowing this smaller body of mass an easier way to remain in one place in time... in other words, it will take the path of least resistance in its' attempt to remain at that place in time.
now let's get extreme... consider a black hole. the mass of a black hole is greater than the resistance of the force of the expansion of space to such a degree that the black hole has actually been able to remain at one place in time. this is at the event horizon only (I will go into what happens inside of the event horizon later on in this thread). since space and time interact, the event horizon allows space to remain at the event horizon while as you get further from the event horizon space will encounter less resistance to the force of expansion through time. this is how we can percieve time as "slowing down" as we get closer to the event horizon.
Now with this in mind I honestly think that time moves slower in outer space then it does on earth..Making it so that other possible living things not fully developed....
So We are alone now....But things change all the time.
#15 Guest_metroid_dragon_*
Posted 27 January 2005 - 01:55 AM
wow that took alot of contemplating.
ok i can understand your basic theory behind that, but the main thing that i dont understand is that what prevents every planet in the universe to exibit these same gravitational effects therefor slowing down their own progress through time and therefor allowing any speciese on their planet to evolve and progress at a rate just as fast if not faster than ours.
dont forget that earth is a small planet compared to most, therefor our gravity is smaller and our difference in time is smaller than a planet that is larger than ours.
but another flaw i find with your theory is this:
how are we able to determin the exact moment in time it takes somthing to to go somewere or arrive somwhere whilst in space? we can accuractly judge the time a comet will arrive in a specific time and place, so if this were true than what we observe from earth should be different than what is really happening. therefor as soon as somthing we launch into space leaves our gravitational field, we should see it speed up drastically as it enters a place were time progresses faster.
if we consider the voyager probes that passed by jupiters moons and saturn, if your prediction were true than we would have miscalculated the probes trajectory and as soon as they left our gravitational field they would have sped up and missed their targets all together.
so in other words, this theory is already known fact and the government hasnt publically told us for some reason, or the theory is flawed.
ok i can understand your basic theory behind that, but the main thing that i dont understand is that what prevents every planet in the universe to exibit these same gravitational effects therefor slowing down their own progress through time and therefor allowing any speciese on their planet to evolve and progress at a rate just as fast if not faster than ours.
dont forget that earth is a small planet compared to most, therefor our gravity is smaller and our difference in time is smaller than a planet that is larger than ours.
but another flaw i find with your theory is this:
how are we able to determin the exact moment in time it takes somthing to to go somewere or arrive somwhere whilst in space? we can accuractly judge the time a comet will arrive in a specific time and place, so if this were true than what we observe from earth should be different than what is really happening. therefor as soon as somthing we launch into space leaves our gravitational field, we should see it speed up drastically as it enters a place were time progresses faster.
if we consider the voyager probes that passed by jupiters moons and saturn, if your prediction were true than we would have miscalculated the probes trajectory and as soon as they left our gravitational field they would have sped up and missed their targets all together.
so in other words, this theory is already known fact and the government hasnt publically told us for some reason, or the theory is flawed.