Jump to content

Server time (UTC): 2022-05-23 02:22

The New Earth


Recommended Posts

So I decided to read into the finding of the planet known by some as "The Cousin of Earth" it's 500 light years away but experts want to try and take images of the planet to get an idea of what the surface of the planet is like.

But this thought just popped into my head. Lets say we do get images, and the images show that it is indeed habitable. But, what if with those images also showed signs of a civilization?

I've always wondered what officials would do if a sign of a civilization was found.

So now I look to you the community to share some input in this subject.

What would you want done or what do you think would be done if this newly discovered Earth type planet had intelligent life?

Link to comment
  • Emerald

They would play Will.I.Am to them again

Link to comment
  • MVP

Although the chances of finding life elsewhere are so close to zero you may as well regard them as zero, I'm all for hypothetical scenarios. Normally when there's talk about planets supporting life I'd say that even if we do discover it, said life might already be gone due to the enormous distances between planets. However, 500 light-years isn't much when it comes to life. Any life is likely to exist at least that long. Basically, anything we would "see" on that exoplanet has happened 500 years ago. And yeah, it's reasonable to suspect it still exists.

The problem however is that it will mean anything we "send" their way will also take 500 years. Can you imagine communicating that way? It's practically impossible. I don't think I have to tell you the problems with this. There's all kinds of stuff that can fail. You can expect a response in at least a thousand years. Who knows what happens in the meantime.

So, yeah. It'd be really cool to know, but that's all it will be: knowing. All you can confirm is that 500 years ago there was life on that particular planet. You don't even know for sure if it's still there.

Which is the sad truth of the universe. It's so fucking gigantic that you never know for sure what you're looking at still exists.

Link to comment
  • Sapphire

Although the chances of finding life elsewhere are so close to zero you may as well regard them as zero, I'm all for hypothetical scenarios. Normally when there's talk about planets supporting life I'd say that even if we do discover it, said life might already be gone due to the enormous distances between planets. However, 500 light-years isn't much when it comes to life. Any life is likely to exist at least that long. Basically, anything we would "see" on that exoplanet has happened 500 years ago. And yeah, it's reasonable to suspect it still exists.

The problem however is that it will mean anything we "send" their way will also take 500 years. Can you imagine communicating that way? It's practically impossible. I don't think I have to tell you the problems with this. There's all kinds of stuff that can fail. You can expect a response in at least a thousand years. Who knows what happens in the meantime.

So, yeah. It'd be really cool to know, but that's all it will be: knowing. All you can confirm is that 500 years ago there was life on that particular planet. You don't even know for sure if it's still there.

Which is the sad truth of the universe. It's so fucking gigantic that you never know for sure what you're looking at still exists.

We get the star wars HyperDrives from George Lucas and we're good to go

Link to comment

Although the chances of finding life elsewhere are so close to zero you may as well regard them as zero, I'm all for hypothetical scenarios. Normally when there's talk about planets supporting life I'd say that even if we do discover it, said life might already be gone due to the enormous distances between planets. However, 500 light-years isn't much when it comes to life. Any life is likely to exist at least that long. Basically, anything we would "see" on that exoplanet has happened 500 years ago. And yeah, it's reasonable to suspect it still exists.

The problem however is that it will mean anything we "send" their way will also take 500 years. Can you imagine communicating that way? It's practically impossible. I don't think I have to tell you the problems with this. There's all kinds of stuff that can fail. You can expect a response in at least a thousand years. Who knows what happens in the meantime.

So, yeah. It'd be really cool to know, but that's all it will be: knowing. All you can confirm is that 500 years ago there was life on that particular planet. You don't even know for sure if it's still there.

Which is the sad truth of the universe. It's so fucking gigantic that you never know for sure what you're looking at still exists.

That is an excellent point, I never would have thought of that. Now if Faster Than Light travel was possible do you believe communication would be possible?

Link to comment
  • Emerald

They would play Will.I.Am to them again

Need some context. I don't follow.

The first song played in space was will.i.am

Link to comment
  • MVP

Although the chances of finding life elsewhere are so close to zero you may as well regard them as zero, I'm all for hypothetical scenarios. Normally when there's talk about planets supporting life I'd say that even if we do discover it, said life might already be gone due to the enormous distances between planets. However, 500 light-years isn't much when it comes to life. Any life is likely to exist at least that long. Basically, anything we would "see" on that exoplanet has happened 500 years ago. And yeah, it's reasonable to suspect it still exists.

The problem however is that it will mean anything we "send" their way will also take 500 years. Can you imagine communicating that way? It's practically impossible. I don't think I have to tell you the problems with this. There's all kinds of stuff that can fail. You can expect a response in at least a thousand years. Who knows what happens in the meantime.

So, yeah. It'd be really cool to know, but that's all it will be: knowing. All you can confirm is that 500 years ago there was life on that particular planet. You don't even know for sure if it's still there.

Which is the sad truth of the universe. It's so fucking gigantic that you never know for sure what you're looking at still exists.

That is an excellent point, I never would have thought of that. Now if Faster Than Light travel was possible do you believe communication would be possible?

If I was the Queen of England I might fancy a cup o' tea and some biscuits, but I'm not, and faster-than-light travel isn't possible. Maybe one day it will be. Who knows. That sounds odd considering I just said it isn't possible, but it's not like we understand everything (or even anything) about the universe. It's just that for now it contradicts certain laws of physics, just like me being the Queen of England contradicts certain laws and customs.

If it is possible, then all you can hope for is that the other civilization has the technology to respond. Or fuck, to even receive the message. :P

Link to comment
  • MVP
faster-than-light travel isn't possible.[/Quote]

*warning! Brace for sensational statement*

Faster-than-light travel is possible. Its already been done. Sort of. Maybe.

About a year ago scientists at CERN sent a special experiment light particle to a transmission/science station of sorts in Italy.

The result? It travelled a fraction faster then the speed of light, causing wide-spread debate wether the old "nothing travels faster then the speed of light"-ethos of science still holds true. There wasnt any real conclusion, and some still argue that it was an error in the measuring equipment.

I suppose the point im trying to make is that "FTL" isnt as far-out-there as might be previously considered. You arent branded a lunitic in the scientific community anymore if you start to suggest it. Even if it would be inconcievable, wormholes could be a potential. Or half a dozen other things that could possibly propell starships between solar systems.

If its feasible within our lifetime however, that's another matter entirely. Its such ridicilously advanced science that its probably going to take ages before its practicly viable. But the fact that there's some -serious- scientific debate on the matter right now gives hopes that it -may be possible- in the remote future at least.

It may appear as magic and looney-talk from sci-fi fans that want to see Star Wars or Star Trek come real, and obviously its never going to be like that, but its gone beyond that in the past decade.

Hell just a few years ago people went "hell there cant possibly be any terrestrial planets out there, Earth has to be unique" and now we're finding terrestrial planets -all over the place-. With each planetary find the chance for an earth-like planet goes up almost explosivly, because its easy to forget that our galaxy alone has possibly hundreds of billions of stars.

There's a saying: Significantly advanced enough science is indistinguishable from magic. FTL drives may appear as "space-magic", but in the end it may just end up being incredibly advanced science. Feasible science.

On the OP's topic:

Wether this "sister-planet" is earth-like enough I dont know, from what I've read all they've managed to determine is that its in the "goldi-locks" zone and has a relativly equal size to Earth. That doesnt have to mean much. I think there's a lot of other potentials out there, not to mention countless star systems that havent been properly monitored.

Im more curious about closer star systems, those that you could actually contact/potentially travel to without having to spend several generations to wait for a message. Who knows how many terrestrial planets are actually floating around the nearby suns.

500 years may be completly unrealistic, 10-20 years isnt.

Some of the new telescope projects that are in the works looks really interesting, I cant wait to see what they'll find.

Link to comment
  • MVP

faster-than-light travel isn't possible.[/Quote]

*warning! Brace for sensational statement*

Faster-than-light travel is possible. Its already been done. Sort of.

About a year ago scientists at CERN sent a special experiment light particle to a transmission/science station of sorts in Italy.

The result? It travelled a fraction faster then the speed of light, causing wide-spread debate wether the old "nothing travels faster then the speed of light"-ethos of science still holds true. There wasnt any real conclusion, and some still argue that it was an error in the measuring equipment.

Some still "argue"? Hasn't it already been proven it was an error? Either it has been done or not. "Sort of" doesn't exist.

That's not to say it might not "one day" be possible, but now, it is not. Truth is only our perception. Truth is what we know. What we observe. There is no truth outside of that.

Who knows what "one day" might be possible. But based on what we know now, it isn't.

Besides, I'm not sure if it was your intention to quote me (it was my text), but you took it a bit out of context. :P

Link to comment
  • MVP

faster-than-light travel isn't possible.[/Quote]

*warning! Brace for sensational statement*

Faster-than-light travel is possible. Its already been done. Sort of.

About a year ago scientists at CERN sent a special experiment light particle to a transmission/science station of sorts in Italy.

The result? It travelled a fraction faster then the speed of light, causing wide-spread debate wether the old "nothing travels faster then the speed of light"-ethos of science still holds true. There wasnt any real conclusion, and some still argue that it was an error in the measuring equipment.

Some still "argue"? Hasn't it already been proven it was an error? Either it has been done or not. "Sort of" doesn't exist.

That's not to say it might not "one day" be possible, but now, it is not. Truth is only our perception. Truth is what we know. What we observe. There is no truth outside of that.

Who knows what "one day" might be possible. But based on what we know now, it isn't.

Besides, I'm not sure if it was your intention to quote me (it was my text), but you took it a bit out of context. :P

Just wanted to quite that tiny specific bit. :D

I wasnt even sure what the rest of the context was. So it meant more as a general statement rather then a response to your own reply. ;)

And from what I've heard it wasnt an error. I can understand why some want to press so hard for it to be an error though because it would cause a bit of turmoil if it wasnt. But hell, iirc the same was said for the higgs-boson.

And you're right, im just speculating. But its fun to speculate. And one can do "reasonable speculation".

I've met a lot of people that considers a lot of "future scientific things" impossible though, including space travel. Not unlikely, not something to be discovered in the future, but -impossible-, as in never going to happen. Ever.

And that ticks me the wrong way a little, as its just a limited perception to have. "It wont happen in my lifetime and it seems like magic to me= Impossible. Forever".

Link to comment

Although the chances of finding life elsewhere are so close to zero you may as well regard them as zero, I'm all for hypothetical scenarios. Normally when there's talk about planets supporting life I'd say that even if we do discover it, said life might already be gone due to the enormous distances between planets. However, 500 light-years isn't much when it comes to life. Any life is likely to exist at least that long. Basically, anything we would "see" on that exoplanet has happened 500 years ago. And yeah, it's reasonable to suspect it still exists.

The problem however is that it will mean anything we "send" their way will also take 500 years. Can you imagine communicating that way? It's practically impossible. I don't think I have to tell you the problems with this. There's all kinds of stuff that can fail. You can expect a response in at least a thousand years. Who knows what happens in the meantime.

So, yeah. It'd be really cool to know, but that's all it will be: knowing. All you can confirm is that 500 years ago there was life on that particular planet. You don't even know for sure if it's still there.

Which is the sad truth of the universe. It's so fucking gigantic that you never know for sure what you're looking at still exists.

And that's supposing the message travels at the speed of light its more likely to take a couple thousand years to get a reply...

Link to comment
  • MVP

*warning! Brace for sensational statement*

Faster-than-light travel is possible. Its already been done. Sort of.

About a year ago scientists at CERN sent a special experiment light particle to a transmission/science station of sorts in Italy.

The result? It travelled a fraction faster then the speed of light, causing wide-spread debate wether the old "nothing travels faster then the speed of light"-ethos of science still holds true. There wasnt any real conclusion, and some still argue that it was an error in the measuring equipment.

Some still "argue"? Hasn't it already been proven it was an error? Either it has been done or not. "Sort of" doesn't exist.

That's not to say it might not "one day" be possible, but now, it is not. Truth is only our perception. Truth is what we know. What we observe. There is no truth outside of that.

Who knows what "one day" might be possible. But based on what we know now, it isn't.

Besides, I'm not sure if it was your intention to quote me (it was my text), but you took it a bit out of context. :P

Just wanted to quite that tiny specific bit. :D

I wasnt even sure what the rest of the context was.

And from what I've heard it wasnt an error. I can understand why some want to press so hard for it to be an error though because it would cause a bit of turmoil if it wasnt. But hell, iirc the same was said for the higgs-boson.

And you're right, im just speculating. But its fun to speculate. And one can do "reasonable speculation".

I've met a lot of people that considers a lot of "future scientific things" impossible though, including space travel. Not unlikely, not something to be discovered in the future, but -impossible-, as in never going to happen. Ever.

And that ticks me the wrong way a little, as its just a limited perception to have. "It wont happen in my lifetime and it seems like magic to me= Impossible. Forever".

Impossibility is contextual too. We say something is impossible in the realms of what is relevant now. That doesn't mean you can't accept it might one day be possible. It's just... you know something and if you can't base your believes on that, then what is truth? Can I even be sure I'm talking to a person now and that this isn't a figment of my imagination?

When there's proof, there's proof, and by all means we should keep looking for it.

Do you have a source by the way? Because Google tells me something different.

Link to comment
  • MVP

Impossibility is contextual too. We say something is impossible in the realms of what is relevant now. That doesn't mean you can't accept it might one day be possible. It's just... you know something and if you can't base your believes on that, then what is truth? Can I even be sure I'm talking to a person now and that this isn't a figment of my imagination?

When there's proof, there's proof, and by all means we should keep looking for it.

Do you have a source by the way? Because Google tells me something different.

It was something I read a year ago so no, I dont have the URL lying around. :D

I could very well be wrong of course.

As for the "what is truth and what is not and how do we know?"-debate is of...a philosophical nature and im not very good with those.

I suppose my point is simply that people usually dont have a very strong imagination, and a limited perception of what usually is and isnt possible.

If all we ever accepted was our current understanding of the universe and never saw an evolution of our understanding of it, then we'd forever be stuck in the same tracks of thinking. I'll take bold and new thinking over conservative thinking anytime of the day, but as you say even such theories needs to be proven and tested. But they should be given a chance to be tested, not rejected merely because it may sound crazy since its not following the old ideology.

That has, to my knowledge, always been a bit of a problem in science. New scientists with new ideas face stern and iron-walled opposition from older scientists with older ideologies because those new ideas would essentially complicate things and force the older ones to adapt. While it can be benefitial for new ideas to go through a "proove yourself!"-process, it isnt benefitial when the scientists themselves that put forth such ideas are ridiculed. That was way way more prevalent in the 19th and early 20th century scientific communities then it is today, but its still there to a point.

Link to comment
  • MVP

Impossibility is contextual too. We say something is impossible in the realms of what is relevant now. That doesn't mean you can't accept it might one day be possible. It's just... you know something and if you can't base your believes on that, then what is truth? Can I even be sure I'm talking to a person now and that this isn't a figment of my imagination?

When there's proof, there's proof, and by all means we should keep looking for it.

Do you have a source by the way? Because Google tells me something different.

It was something I read a year ago so no, I dont have the URL lying around. :D

I could very well be wrong of course.

Well, they measured it once, but it was proven to be an error. A faulty cable connection in the GPS system used to time the neutrino, to be precise.

As for the "what is truth and what is not and how do we know?"-debate is of...a philosophical nature and im not very good with those.

I suppose my point is simply that people usually dont have a very strong imagination, and a limited perception of what usually is and isnt possible.

I'd say that philosophy is as relevant as "imagination". Neither is based on proof. And the philosophy of physics is actually very interesting because it tells us how to look at certain things, and that can open our eyes.

If all we ever accepted was our current understanding of the universe and never saw an evolution of our understanding of it, then we'd forever be stuck in the same tracks of thinking. I'll take bold and new thinking over conservative thinking anytime of the day, but as you say even such theories needs to be proven and tested. But they should be given a chance to be tested, not rejected merely because it may sound crazy since its not following the old ideology.

That has, to my knowledge, always been a bit of a problem in science. New scientists with new ideas face stern and iron-walled opposition from older scientists with older ideologies because those new ideas would essentially complicate things and force the older ones to adapt. While it can be benefitial for new ideas to go through a "proove yourself!"-process, it isnt benefitial when the scientists themselves that put forth such ideas are ridiculed. That was way way more prevalent in the 19th and early 20th century scientific communities then it is today, but its still there to a point.

You're right, and there are a lot of close-minded scientists who will do anything to not be proven wrong. But likewise there are also a lot of scientists who will do anything to make the news, and they desperately cling to theories without any proof whatsoever.

The fact is we’ll never be able to travel beyond the speed of light, at least based on our current understanding of established physics. That's more than just an "old ideology". The fact is also that our current understand of established physics can change. After all, established physics don't account for how the fuck the universe ever started to exist. It simply can't explain that.

Established physics changing is not likely to just "happen" though, and if it were to happen, you'd need a helluva lot of proof.

A real scientist doesn't let proof stand in his/her way, but a real scientists also doesn't make claims he can't back up, claims he doesn't have a basis for. That doesn't mean you can't do research of course. But for now all it is, is wishful-thinking.

Link to comment
  • MVP

Impossibility is contextual too. We say something is impossible in the realms of what is relevant now. That doesn't mean you can't accept it might one day be possible. It's just... you know something and if you can't base your believes on that, then what is truth? Can I even be sure I'm talking to a person now and that this isn't a figment of my imagination?

When there's proof, there's proof, and by all means we should keep looking for it.

Do you have a source by the way? Because Google tells me something different.

It was something I read a year ago so no, I dont have the URL lying around. :D

I could very well be wrong of course.

Well, they measured it once, but it was proven to be an error. A faulty cable connection in the GPS system used to time the neutrino, to be precise.

As for the "what is truth and what is not and how do we know?"-debate is of...a philosophical nature and im not very good with those.

I suppose my point is simply that people usually dont have a very strong imagination, and a limited perception of what usually is and isnt possible.

I'd say that philosophy is as relevant as "imagination". Neither is based on proof. And the philosophy of physics is actually very interesting because it tells us how to look at certain things, and that can open our eyes.

If all we ever accepted was our current understanding of the universe and never saw an evolution of our understanding of it, then we'd forever be stuck in the same tracks of thinking. I'll take bold and new thinking over conservative thinking anytime of the day, but as you say even such theories needs to be proven and tested. But they should be given a chance to be tested, not rejected merely because it may sound crazy since its not following the old ideology.

That has, to my knowledge, always been a bit of a problem in science. New scientists with new ideas face stern and iron-walled opposition from older scientists with older ideologies because those new ideas would essentially complicate things and force the older ones to adapt. While it can be benefitial for new ideas to go through a "proove yourself!"-process, it isnt benefitial when the scientists themselves that put forth such ideas are ridiculed. That was way way more prevalent in the 19th and early 20th century scientific communities then it is today, but its still there to a point.

You're right, and there are a lot of close-minded scientists who will do anything to not be proven wrong. But likewise there are also a lot of scientists who will do anything to make the news, and they desperately cling to theories without any proof whatsoever.

The fact is we’ll never be able to travel beyond the speed of light, at least based on our current understanding of established physics. That's more than just an "old ideology". The fact is also that our current understand of established physics can change. After all, established physics don't account for how the fuck the universe ever started to exist. It simply can't explain that.

Established physics changing is not likely to just "happen" though, and if it were to happen, you'd need a helluva lot of proof.

A real scientist doesn't let proof stand in his/her way, but a real scientists also doesn't make claims he can't back up, claims he doesn't have a basis for. That doesn't mean you can't do research of course. But for now all it is, is wishful-thinking.

You're right, it goes both ways.

If the faulty equipment-thing checks out then I suppose you're right there too, that currently it is deemed impossible of our current understanding of physics.

I suppose I could "cheat" by mentioning worm-holes, since I believe that is a concept that is within the realm of current physics, but its not technicly -faster- then speed of light, its just taking a "shortcut" through space-time. :D

Link to comment
  • MVP

You're right, it goes both ways.

If the faulty equipment-thing checks out then I suppose you're right there too, that currently it is deemed impossible of our current understanding of physics.

I suppose I could "cheat" by mentioning worm-holes, since I believe that is a concept that is within the realm of current physics, but its not technicly -faster- then speed of light, its just taking a "shortcut" through space-time. :D

Wormholes are, eh, well... There are many scientists who don't really consider it to be a science. :P Perhaps they are close-minded, but then again, there are also people that believe in auras and, uh... other stuff.

A big part of the world doesn't care about proof. They are sensationalists. I think that's what many scientists get annoyed by.

Personally I'd gladly learn more about that stuff, even if only for entertainment.

Link to comment

Don't they think that billions of years ago there used to be basic life on mars?

I think it'd be really cool to have that kind of proof that we're not alone, though.

I have a (very christian) friend who is convinced that there is no other life in the universe. I tried to convince her with numbers and facts, but she wasn't having any of it.

Link to comment

Don't they think that billions of years ago there used to be basic life on mars?

I think it'd be really cool to have that kind of proof that we're not alone, though.

I have a (very christian) friend who is convinced that there is no other life in the universe. I tried to convince her with numbers and facts, but she wasn't having any of it.

I think the day we learn we are not alone out in this mysterious universe, mankind may begin to change it ways. I hope that mankind will band together and create a new renaissance.

I think we as a society need it. We need to realize that even though we think differently we all are one thing, and that's human.

Link to comment

Honestly, we know NOTHING about the origin of the big bang. The only reason i am somewhat religious is because what caused this arom cloud to just, well, be there. In my opinion we are here because a higher advanced civilized planet put us here. Saying this, there HAS to be other ways to get to another inhabitable planet, hell in CERN they are recreating big bangs and if they can do this, then they can definetly in our pifetime figure out if workholes or going faster than the speed of light is feasable Sorry for the wall of text, im on my phone

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...