Movie Theater Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
- Thread starter onechance
- Start date
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
He's extraordinary, to the limits of meaning.
The series covers info I have given layman's study at every opportunity. Despite a considerable effort, his presentation brings new light and far better understanding than I had previously. I'm thinking of buying the DVD, which will be my first such purchase from <span style="font-style: italic">Discovery</span>.
As one becomes an elder, much of life's knowledge and experiences meld to render insights. As informational holes are patched, and understandings become extended across the gaps, matters which were once incomprehensible become 'ahah moments'.
For me, the intellectual goal of my elder years has been to integrate and simplify my understandings. This series cuts massive inroads through the dross for me.
Greg
He's extraordinary, to the limits of meaning.
The series covers info I have given layman's study at every opportunity. Despite a considerable effort, his presentation brings new light and far better understanding than I had previously. I'm thinking of buying the DVD, which will be my first such purchase from <span style="font-style: italic">Discovery</span>.
As one becomes an elder, much of life's knowledge and experiences meld to render insights. As informational holes are patched, and understandings become extended across the gaps, matters which were once incomprehensible become 'ahah moments'.
For me, the intellectual goal of my elder years has been to integrate and simplify my understandings. This series cuts massive inroads through the dross for me.
Greg
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
Where have I heard <span style="font-style: italic">that</span> before...?
...Actually, it's that 'way with words' that tends to get me into the most trouble some days...
Mostly, I just talk too much...
Greg
Where have I heard <span style="font-style: italic">that</span> before...?
...Actually, it's that 'way with words' that tends to get me into the most trouble some days...
Mostly, I just talk too much...
Greg
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
I'm not sure what to believe about other life being out there. I always like listening to people that are that smart. That show is really cool.
I'm not sure what to believe about other life being out there. I always like listening to people that are that smart. That show is really cool.
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
With regard to life and intelligence, I consider them to be inevitable consequences of fortunate coincidences in rather complex but common conditions.
As for the Creator, I believe in the elegance of Our Creator's actions. For a truly elegant Creator, the entire act of creation could have been a single act, embarked upon in but an infinitesimal instant. As such, I find it impossible not to be able to reconcile science and religion. What's more, I consider it borderline blasphemy to deny an omnipotent Creator such a degree of elegance. The folks who can't work that out simply haven't thought it all the way through, IMHO; and prefer to let others do their thinking for them.
What's more, we already know from our own ecosphere that the conventional expectations of which conditions support life are flawed, incomplete, and need to revised in far broader terms. As the movie character says, "Life finds a way'; and I humbly consider those ways to be both myriad and immensely and joyously enlightening.
The point most all of us miss is the vastness of creation. In my mind, creation includes but is not limited to the universe as a whole; especially in our still quite limited understanding. Time and space are remarkable beyond most human comprehension. Hawking comes closest from where I can see the issues.
I believe it is both logical and reasonable to consider the likelihood that life and intelligence are inevitable sequences which act themselves out in countless renditions which occur wherever conditions favor them, and as I said, I think the conditions are common. But common as they may be; within the countless billions of galaxies in just the known universe, it is equally plausible that across the vast distances, entire species live out their spans and vanish in less time than is required for the light from their parent star to cross the vast abyss that separates us.
Current stumbling beginners' steps at identifying human-life-suitible planets put the nearest known one at 20 light years' distance. Employing the fastest curently known human originated craft, that would require 300,000 years to reach. Estimates of 'practical' limits of sublight transits still makes the journey longer than the current average human lifetime. Such a conveyance would be immensely costly and would effectively provide no tangible return to the builder, unless, of course, they were also the passenger. Unless life could be substantally and enjoyably prolonged, it would still be pretty much of a bust. Personally, my money's on the Bussard Ramjet.
The more we comprehend the extended and convoluted implications of the relatively simple equations which describe our continuum of space-time, the more one also comprehends that in a universe of infinitudes, limits have less meaning.
What's more, concepts like 'understanding' and 'limits' may well be simply demonstrations of our own anthropomorphic shortcomings. Does anybody really know if terms like 'understanding' and 'limits' have any meaning to the universe itself, aside from human efforts at comprehension? Personally, I think not, and I see the Creator's hand as creative, comforting, and nurturing, while being simultaneously both awesome and awful, but shielded from us by divinely benevolent care.
That's my take, and I can't even hold a candle to Hawking's brilliance.
Greg
With regard to life and intelligence, I consider them to be inevitable consequences of fortunate coincidences in rather complex but common conditions.
As for the Creator, I believe in the elegance of Our Creator's actions. For a truly elegant Creator, the entire act of creation could have been a single act, embarked upon in but an infinitesimal instant. As such, I find it impossible not to be able to reconcile science and religion. What's more, I consider it borderline blasphemy to deny an omnipotent Creator such a degree of elegance. The folks who can't work that out simply haven't thought it all the way through, IMHO; and prefer to let others do their thinking for them.
What's more, we already know from our own ecosphere that the conventional expectations of which conditions support life are flawed, incomplete, and need to revised in far broader terms. As the movie character says, "Life finds a way'; and I humbly consider those ways to be both myriad and immensely and joyously enlightening.
The point most all of us miss is the vastness of creation. In my mind, creation includes but is not limited to the universe as a whole; especially in our still quite limited understanding. Time and space are remarkable beyond most human comprehension. Hawking comes closest from where I can see the issues.
I believe it is both logical and reasonable to consider the likelihood that life and intelligence are inevitable sequences which act themselves out in countless renditions which occur wherever conditions favor them, and as I said, I think the conditions are common. But common as they may be; within the countless billions of galaxies in just the known universe, it is equally plausible that across the vast distances, entire species live out their spans and vanish in less time than is required for the light from their parent star to cross the vast abyss that separates us.
Current stumbling beginners' steps at identifying human-life-suitible planets put the nearest known one at 20 light years' distance. Employing the fastest curently known human originated craft, that would require 300,000 years to reach. Estimates of 'practical' limits of sublight transits still makes the journey longer than the current average human lifetime. Such a conveyance would be immensely costly and would effectively provide no tangible return to the builder, unless, of course, they were also the passenger. Unless life could be substantally and enjoyably prolonged, it would still be pretty much of a bust. Personally, my money's on the Bussard Ramjet.
The more we comprehend the extended and convoluted implications of the relatively simple equations which describe our continuum of space-time, the more one also comprehends that in a universe of infinitudes, limits have less meaning.
What's more, concepts like 'understanding' and 'limits' may well be simply demonstrations of our own anthropomorphic shortcomings. Does anybody really know if terms like 'understanding' and 'limits' have any meaning to the universe itself, aside from human efforts at comprehension? Personally, I think not, and I see the Creator's hand as creative, comforting, and nurturing, while being simultaneously both awesome and awful, but shielded from us by divinely benevolent care.
That's my take, and I can't even hold a candle to Hawking's brilliance.
Greg
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
Theroey of everything.
Big bang started in something smaller than an atom.
That seems just a tad smaller than infinity.
But yet it will continue to expand into something that doesn't exist.
Must have some help somewhere, but where was the help before this happened?
Guess ya got to be open minded to other posibilities.
Think even he might be mentally scratching his head.
Who are we to prove him wrong?
Theroey of everything.
Big bang started in something smaller than an atom.
That seems just a tad smaller than infinity.
But yet it will continue to expand into something that doesn't exist.
Must have some help somewhere, but where was the help before this happened?
Guess ya got to be open minded to other posibilities.
Think even he might be mentally scratching his head.
Who are we to prove him wrong?
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
Let's look at it this way:
If the depictions of a black hole are plausible, then immensity is condensed to but a single dimensionless point referred to as a singularity. Some use the term 'white hole' and suggest linkage in concept to principles that could support the/a (sorta)big bang.
When one encompasses the entire volume of mass and energy, time and space, and inputs these into the black hole equations, the big bang and the output of the equations are largely indistinguishable.
There's more to this than we already know, or may ever know (without entering a black hole). The term 'singularity' is a scientifically nice depiction of a pure and unadulterated copout. It means, simply, that we (as a species) don't know, and anybody who says he does is suspect. IMHO, except Steven Hawking. For a guy who's stuck in a body that can think and little else, he still thinks a bunch.
Greg
Let's look at it this way:
If the depictions of a black hole are plausible, then immensity is condensed to but a single dimensionless point referred to as a singularity. Some use the term 'white hole' and suggest linkage in concept to principles that could support the/a (sorta)big bang.
When one encompasses the entire volume of mass and energy, time and space, and inputs these into the black hole equations, the big bang and the output of the equations are largely indistinguishable.
There's more to this than we already know, or may ever know (without entering a black hole). The term 'singularity' is a scientifically nice depiction of a pure and unadulterated copout. It means, simply, that we (as a species) don't know, and anybody who says he does is suspect. IMHO, except Steven Hawking. For a guy who's stuck in a body that can think and little else, he still thinks a bunch.
Greg
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
really glad they produced this series. i was introduced to steven hawking's "brief history of time" when i was 14. felt an immediate draw to his perspective. in fact, i have an audio books version of it on my zune. sometimes, i like to go for a long run or bike ride and just listen. it's great food for thought.
really glad they produced this series. i was introduced to steven hawking's "brief history of time" when i was 14. felt an immediate draw to his perspective. in fact, i have an audio books version of it on my zune. sometimes, i like to go for a long run or bike ride and just listen. it's great food for thought.
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
I like learning about the "Blanket Theory" and the fact that we now think there is 14 dimensions. I also understand that there might be waves in space allowing shorter paths of travel.
I like learning about the "Blanket Theory" and the fact that we now think there is 14 dimensions. I also understand that there might be waves in space allowing shorter paths of travel.
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
No, my IQ tests repeatedly and boringly at 138, and has done so with any change for the past 50 years.
My accomplished babblosity stems from the rather embarrassing fact that of you beat a dunce repeately over the head with the same thing often enough, some of it is bound to stick. And then, there's education via assmosis; which is accomplished by spending sufficient time sitting upon the right book.
Greg
No, my IQ tests repeatedly and boringly at 138, and has done so with any change for the past 50 years.
My accomplished babblosity stems from the rather embarrassing fact that of you beat a dunce repeately over the head with the same thing often enough, some of it is bound to stick. And then, there's education via assmosis; which is accomplished by spending sufficient time sitting upon the right book.
Greg
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
Here's another mind tickler about our universe.
The Elegant Universe
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Here's another mind tickler about our universe.
The Elegant Universe
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
I just can't help but to watch almost anything about astronomy, except for the alien conspiracy theories.
This is probably one of the best series so far. It's just hard to fathom how small we really are in the grand scheme of things and how much we have learned in the past hundred years or so. Is it all correct according to the mathematics? Or is it just as it says, a theory. The whole Big Bang theory is just hard for me to comprehend. If there was nothing before the big bang, how could something just come out of nowhere from nothing? A Universe doesn't make much sense to me, a multiverse would make more sense to me that if we spawn off from another. The episode they did last week about time travel also racks my brain.
I just can't help but to watch almost anything about astronomy, except for the alien conspiracy theories.
This is probably one of the best series so far. It's just hard to fathom how small we really are in the grand scheme of things and how much we have learned in the past hundred years or so. Is it all correct according to the mathematics? Or is it just as it says, a theory. The whole Big Bang theory is just hard for me to comprehend. If there was nothing before the big bang, how could something just come out of nowhere from nothing? A Universe doesn't make much sense to me, a multiverse would make more sense to me that if we spawn off from another. The episode they did last week about time travel also racks my brain.
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
I had the same question.
Then I asked myself. How could one be outside the universe, however small it might be?
Reality depends on being <span style="font-style: italic">within</span> the Universe. Until the Universe had expanded to about the size of our own Milky Way Galaxy, most of the questions we might have today were totally inapplicable, because the factors, and the answers, our questions might deal with had no relevence to the things which as yet had evolved out of the primordial maelstrom. There was energy, and antimatter and matter were the only things of substance. After they had finished annihilating themselves, about 1/1000th of the original mass remained, and the reminder had been totally converted into energy.
Then, according to the ratio extant in the Einstein equation E=M(C*Squared) that energy began to condense into mass, taking the form of hydrogen atoms.
At this point, time had elapsed for approximately 200 million years.
Hydrogen was coalescing under gravity into stellar objects and beginning to fuse. Galaxies followed as myriad stars emerged. Hydrogen, helium, neon, carbon, and iron were fusing, until mostly iron remained and novas erupted. In the inconcevable violence of novas, the heavier elements were fused. It was only following this that planets would have materials from which to formm, and life might follow a convenient alignment of conditions.
So what's in the the universe, and what isn't.
IMHO space is limitless. If the expanding universe is an accurate account, then there is a radius of approximately 14-16 Billion light years where expanding matter would be limited by lightspeed to have expanded. Space might be limitless, but the expansion of mass matter within that space is limited by the Einstein equations. So space itself is limitless, I suspect that without mass, time is not relevent.
But the universe has limits. I consider those limits to exist at the event horizons of black holes. Locations external to the universe could be as close as the axis of our own Milky Way galaxy, where a supemassive black hole exists. Or even closer, in the aftermath of a more nearby Supernova.
How would I define 'outside the universe"? Easy, anywhere that the laws of physics are abrogated. Hawking's postulates surmise that this condition exists just beyond the event horizon of a black hole.
This is making my head hurt. All for now, I need me a G&T, NOW!
Greg
I had the same question.
Then I asked myself. How could one be outside the universe, however small it might be?
Reality depends on being <span style="font-style: italic">within</span> the Universe. Until the Universe had expanded to about the size of our own Milky Way Galaxy, most of the questions we might have today were totally inapplicable, because the factors, and the answers, our questions might deal with had no relevence to the things which as yet had evolved out of the primordial maelstrom. There was energy, and antimatter and matter were the only things of substance. After they had finished annihilating themselves, about 1/1000th of the original mass remained, and the reminder had been totally converted into energy.
Then, according to the ratio extant in the Einstein equation E=M(C*Squared) that energy began to condense into mass, taking the form of hydrogen atoms.
At this point, time had elapsed for approximately 200 million years.
Hydrogen was coalescing under gravity into stellar objects and beginning to fuse. Galaxies followed as myriad stars emerged. Hydrogen, helium, neon, carbon, and iron were fusing, until mostly iron remained and novas erupted. In the inconcevable violence of novas, the heavier elements were fused. It was only following this that planets would have materials from which to formm, and life might follow a convenient alignment of conditions.
So what's in the the universe, and what isn't.
IMHO space is limitless. If the expanding universe is an accurate account, then there is a radius of approximately 14-16 Billion light years where expanding matter would be limited by lightspeed to have expanded. Space might be limitless, but the expansion of mass matter within that space is limited by the Einstein equations. So space itself is limitless, I suspect that without mass, time is not relevent.
But the universe has limits. I consider those limits to exist at the event horizons of black holes. Locations external to the universe could be as close as the axis of our own Milky Way galaxy, where a supemassive black hole exists. Or even closer, in the aftermath of a more nearby Supernova.
How would I define 'outside the universe"? Easy, anywhere that the laws of physics are abrogated. Hawking's postulates surmise that this condition exists just beyond the event horizon of a black hole.
This is making my head hurt. All for now, I need me a G&T, NOW!
Greg
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
I'm afraid probably the only person here that could even understand any of it is Lindy. lol
I'm afraid probably the only person here that could even understand any of it is Lindy. lol
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
There is 2 things that makes me wander about the world we live in.
1- The knowledge that the fabric of our surrounding, the atom, is mainly empty
space. And yet we are walking and touching what appears to us as solid.
2- We made an inventory of the universe and we "see" only 4% of what is out there.
Yes, there is 96% of the universe that is called dark energy and dark matter.
We measure the influence of the dark energy/matter but we do not know what it
is.
We are living in interesting times, where so many things are discovered and even more things are eluding our comprehension.
I am pretty sure that the dark energy/matter is the cause of my flyers and looking forward to the day that my ballistic program will compensate for it.
There is 2 things that makes me wander about the world we live in.
1- The knowledge that the fabric of our surrounding, the atom, is mainly empty
space. And yet we are walking and touching what appears to us as solid.
2- We made an inventory of the universe and we "see" only 4% of what is out there.
Yes, there is 96% of the universe that is called dark energy and dark matter.
We measure the influence of the dark energy/matter but we do not know what it
is.
We are living in interesting times, where so many things are discovered and even more things are eluding our comprehension.
I am pretty sure that the dark energy/matter is the cause of my flyers and looking forward to the day that my ballistic program will compensate for it.
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
I usually blame coronal mass ejections for my misses.
I usually blame coronal mass ejections for my misses.
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
One of the points covered last night was that if the earth were to be swallowed by a Back Hole, the 8,000 mile diameter mass would occupy a sphere 7" in diameter. The difference represents the empty space between all those subatomic particles.
Understand, particles don't touch outside the hole, and maybe not also within one. They are supported in opposition to each other by centrifugal forces, gravitic attraction, and electromagnetic attractions and repulsions.
When you fall (dive?) off the skyscraper, you never actually hit the ground. The ground molecules' electromagnetic repulsion prevents actual contact.
Greg
One of the points covered last night was that if the earth were to be swallowed by a Back Hole, the 8,000 mile diameter mass would occupy a sphere 7" in diameter. The difference represents the empty space between all those subatomic particles.
Understand, particles don't touch outside the hole, and maybe not also within one. They are supported in opposition to each other by centrifugal forces, gravitic attraction, and electromagnetic attractions and repulsions.
When you fall (dive?) off the skyscraper, you never actually hit the ground. The ground molecules' electromagnetic repulsion prevents actual contact.
Greg
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I usually blame coronal mass ejections for my misses. </div></div>
It won`t tell you what correction you need, but when not to shoot
http://spaceweatherphone.com/
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I usually blame coronal mass ejections for my misses. </div></div>
It won`t tell you what correction you need, but when not to shoot
http://spaceweatherphone.com/
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
IMHO space is limitless. If the expanding universe is an accurate account, then there is a radius of approximately 14-16 Billion light years where expanding matter would be limited by lightspeed to have expanded. Space might be limitless, but the expansion of mass matter within that space is limited by the Einstein equations. So space itself is limitless, I suspect that without mass, time is not relevent.</div></div>
Actually, space can expand faster than the speed of light - however, nothing inside spacetime can move faster than light. The predicted physical dimensions of the Universe are actually closer to 50 billion light years, even though we can only see to the horizon (about 13 billion light years). Alan Guth solved a key problem with the Big Bang by developing the concept of Inflation, which allows space to expand faster than the speed of light.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
IMHO space is limitless. If the expanding universe is an accurate account, then there is a radius of approximately 14-16 Billion light years where expanding matter would be limited by lightspeed to have expanded. Space might be limitless, but the expansion of mass matter within that space is limited by the Einstein equations. So space itself is limitless, I suspect that without mass, time is not relevent.</div></div>
Actually, space can expand faster than the speed of light - however, nothing inside spacetime can move faster than light. The predicted physical dimensions of the Universe are actually closer to 50 billion light years, even though we can only see to the horizon (about 13 billion light years). Alan Guth solved a key problem with the Big Bang by developing the concept of Inflation, which allows space to expand faster than the speed of light.
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
IMHO space is limitless. If the expanding universe is an accurate account, then there is a radius of approximately 14-16 Billion light years where expanding matter would be limited by lightspeed to have expanded. Space might be limitless, but the expansion of mass matter within that space is limited by the Einstein equations. So space itself is limitless, I suspect that without mass, time is not relevent.</div></div>
Actually, space can expand faster than the speed of light - however, nothing inside spacetime can move faster than light. The predicted physical dimensions of the Universe are actually closer to 50 billion light years, even though we can only see to the horizon (about 13 billion light years). Alan Guth solved a key problem with the Big Bang by developing the concept of Inflation, which allows space to expand faster than the speed of light. </div></div>
Sorry for my ignorance on that last part.
I was still thinking about being chased by something at the speed of light that would never catch me!
Also The theroy Of faster than light.
With proper formulas and data working 6-8 chalk boards can be fun.
I need a calculator for some of that!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
IMHO space is limitless. If the expanding universe is an accurate account, then there is a radius of approximately 14-16 Billion light years where expanding matter would be limited by lightspeed to have expanded. Space might be limitless, but the expansion of mass matter within that space is limited by the Einstein equations. So space itself is limitless, I suspect that without mass, time is not relevent.</div></div>
Actually, space can expand faster than the speed of light - however, nothing inside spacetime can move faster than light. The predicted physical dimensions of the Universe are actually closer to 50 billion light years, even though we can only see to the horizon (about 13 billion light years). Alan Guth solved a key problem with the Big Bang by developing the concept of Inflation, which allows space to expand faster than the speed of light. </div></div>
Sorry for my ignorance on that last part.
I was still thinking about being chased by something at the speed of light that would never catch me!
Also The theroy Of faster than light.
With proper formulas and data working 6-8 chalk boards can be fun.
I need a calculator for some of that!
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
The problem with the speed of light is mass. The faster you go more energy is required to accelerate the mass. As you approach relativistic speeds the energy required gets off the charts, so much so that even the tiniest low mass objects such as protons at the LHC can't be fully accelerated to 100% the speed of light (very, very close, however).
By the way, on the Big Bang, astronomers have been able to map the microwave background radiation leftover from about 380,000 years after the initial conditions that created the Universe. We can see some of this radiation when we look at static on the TV or hear that hiss on the radio. The CMB is one of many predictions made by the scientific theory that was observationally confirmed.
The problem with the speed of light is mass. The faster you go more energy is required to accelerate the mass. As you approach relativistic speeds the energy required gets off the charts, so much so that even the tiniest low mass objects such as protons at the LHC can't be fully accelerated to 100% the speed of light (very, very close, however).
By the way, on the Big Bang, astronomers have been able to map the microwave background radiation leftover from about 380,000 years after the initial conditions that created the Universe. We can see some of this radiation when we look at static on the TV or hear that hiss on the radio. The CMB is one of many predictions made by the scientific theory that was observationally confirmed.
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
A light year is a year with less calories right?
Or maybe, Shankster being single for 52 weeks...
A light year is a year with less calories right?
Or maybe, Shankster being single for 52 weeks...
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
One of the reasons I enjoy science fiction is the ways it deals with the implications of scientific fact.
Folks like Larry Niven and C.J. Cherryh like to pick up the story line a couple of centuries further on, in a time frame when the mechanical and physical bugs have been worked out and many of the inconveniences of relativistic space/time have been circumvented.
Realism suffers (maybe, maybe not; it's a bit early to tell...), but the plot lines get truly interesting. Niven's <span style="font-style: italic">Tales of Known Space</span> time line and Cherryh's <span style="font-style: italic">Merchanter</span> series get the ole cogitator cogitatin' at superlight speed.
Just ran across <span style="font-style: italic">Cyteen</span> and glommed it up. I had considered it a decade or two back, when it was still forthcoming, but now I believe I made the right decision to wait, especially since the 'long awaited sequel' is also available.
Niven's <span style="font-style: italic">The Mote in God's Eye</span> and the sequel <span style="font-style: italic">The Gripping Hand</span> are outstanding, being collaborations with Jerry Pournelle. The <span style="font-style: italic">Ringworld</span> saga is also both outrageous and believable.
I'm both glad I live in a time when imagination is both free and prolific, and perhaps a tad sad that I'll never really get to see how it turns out (in this lifetime anyway).
As for the expanding universe and issues like the galactic rotation paradox, they collectively give me hope that there's still a lot to comprehend and integrate, and that the circumventions the Sci-Fy writers favor may yet turn out have some basis in fact.
I envy my descendants and the times in which they'll be living; assuming our Grand Leadership's Grand Scheme of All Things Near and Far doesn't ruin their chances before they can even get near them.
I'm particularly discouraged by the current unilateral and much disputed decision to exclude the American Taxpayer from investing in this world's future in manned Lunar and Mars exploration and habitation. China and India have a bigger chance of capitalizing on this than the current American Taxpayer (Gee, thanks, Boss; I see you're covering our backs just fine...).
Well, enough of this for the moment. I <span style="font-style: italic">will</span> be checking back periodically because I really <span style="font-style: italic">do</span> hope this topic takes off and flies fast and far.
Greg
One of the reasons I enjoy science fiction is the ways it deals with the implications of scientific fact.
Folks like Larry Niven and C.J. Cherryh like to pick up the story line a couple of centuries further on, in a time frame when the mechanical and physical bugs have been worked out and many of the inconveniences of relativistic space/time have been circumvented.
Realism suffers (maybe, maybe not; it's a bit early to tell...), but the plot lines get truly interesting. Niven's <span style="font-style: italic">Tales of Known Space</span> time line and Cherryh's <span style="font-style: italic">Merchanter</span> series get the ole cogitator cogitatin' at superlight speed.
Just ran across <span style="font-style: italic">Cyteen</span> and glommed it up. I had considered it a decade or two back, when it was still forthcoming, but now I believe I made the right decision to wait, especially since the 'long awaited sequel' is also available.
Niven's <span style="font-style: italic">The Mote in God's Eye</span> and the sequel <span style="font-style: italic">The Gripping Hand</span> are outstanding, being collaborations with Jerry Pournelle. The <span style="font-style: italic">Ringworld</span> saga is also both outrageous and believable.
I'm both glad I live in a time when imagination is both free and prolific, and perhaps a tad sad that I'll never really get to see how it turns out (in this lifetime anyway).
As for the expanding universe and issues like the galactic rotation paradox, they collectively give me hope that there's still a lot to comprehend and integrate, and that the circumventions the Sci-Fy writers favor may yet turn out have some basis in fact.
I envy my descendants and the times in which they'll be living; assuming our Grand Leadership's Grand Scheme of All Things Near and Far doesn't ruin their chances before they can even get near them.
I'm particularly discouraged by the current unilateral and much disputed decision to exclude the American Taxpayer from investing in this world's future in manned Lunar and Mars exploration and habitation. China and India have a bigger chance of capitalizing on this than the current American Taxpayer (Gee, thanks, Boss; I see you're covering our backs just fine...).
Well, enough of this for the moment. I <span style="font-style: italic">will</span> be checking back periodically because I really <span style="font-style: italic">do</span> hope this topic takes off and flies fast and far.
Greg
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: onechance</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who all belives that we're the only ones out in the Cosmos?</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CAT5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not sure what to believe about other life being out there. </div></div>
One doesn't need a belief for that which there is evidence for.
For example, I don't need a belief about whether it is raining where I am. If I'm outside, I <span style="font-style: italic">know.</span> If I'm not outside, I can go outside, or look out a window.
A belief about that is not only unneeded, but may very well be incorrect.
I have seen no credible evidence to suggest that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
I do have questions about the existence of intelligent life on <span style="font-style: italic">earth</span>, but that's another discussion.
However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There may be such life, but they haven't shown up yet.
So, I have no belief about whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm afraid probably the only person here that could even understand any of it is Lindy. lol</div></div>
I cannot pretend to understand what Hawkings claims to understand. Fortunately, there is, with respect to this particular subject, no need for me to.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A man's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink. -- W.C. Fields</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: onechance</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who all belives that we're the only ones out in the Cosmos?</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CAT5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not sure what to believe about other life being out there. </div></div>
One doesn't need a belief for that which there is evidence for.
For example, I don't need a belief about whether it is raining where I am. If I'm outside, I <span style="font-style: italic">know.</span> If I'm not outside, I can go outside, or look out a window.
A belief about that is not only unneeded, but may very well be incorrect.
I have seen no credible evidence to suggest that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
I do have questions about the existence of intelligent life on <span style="font-style: italic">earth</span>, but that's another discussion.
However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There may be such life, but they haven't shown up yet.
So, I have no belief about whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm afraid probably the only person here that could even understand any of it is Lindy. lol</div></div>
I cannot pretend to understand what Hawkings claims to understand. Fortunately, there is, with respect to this particular subject, no need for me to.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A man's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink. -- W.C. Fields</div></div>
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
I have no doubt that there is life out there.
For those who ask about proof, there is no proof of us out there either.
I have no doubt that there is life out there.
For those who ask about proof, there is no proof of us out there either.
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
Our only physical proof of us is Voyager.
A line drawing of us and some noise on a gold record.
Makes us look pretty smart, doesn't it?
What would you think if you found it in say 20,000 years?
How many of you remember the moon landings?
Were you even born?
Man's desire for more knowledge is a good thing.
Before Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan taught us of the cosmos.
Next time you look at the stars, remember you are not the one that named the big dipper.
We have been looking and wondering, since we could see them.
For how long have we been able to navigate by using them?
Yes, it may rain tonight.
May it rain somewhere else too?
Our only physical proof of us is Voyager.
A line drawing of us and some noise on a gold record.
Makes us look pretty smart, doesn't it?
What would you think if you found it in say 20,000 years?
How many of you remember the moon landings?
Were you even born?
Man's desire for more knowledge is a good thing.
Before Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan taught us of the cosmos.
Next time you look at the stars, remember you are not the one that named the big dipper.
We have been looking and wondering, since we could see them.
For how long have we been able to navigate by using them?
Yes, it may rain tonight.
May it rain somewhere else too?
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ssgp2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have no doubt that there is life out there.
For those who ask about proof, there is no proof of us out there either.
</div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, yeah there is - radio and TV broadcasts.
</div></div>
proof to about 123 light years give or take... If they are listening that is...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ssgp2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have no doubt that there is life out there.
For those who ask about proof, there is no proof of us out there either.
</div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, yeah there is - radio and TV broadcasts.
</div></div>
proof to about 123 light years give or take... If they are listening that is...
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
So that message broadcast of the olympics by Hitler is how far?
At that distance, how sensitive the antenna, how narrow the angle of reception?
123 light years in a universe of 15G light years.
If you fart right now, do you think someone will hear it on the moon?
We are nothing in a very large playground, to assume we make enought noise to be noticed.....
Voyager is our proof of existence?
How big is that probe?
There are almost 7G people on this planet, making noise.
Someone is going to notice that piece of junk who barely has enought power to broadcast back to us....
So that message broadcast of the olympics by Hitler is how far?
At that distance, how sensitive the antenna, how narrow the angle of reception?
123 light years in a universe of 15G light years.
If you fart right now, do you think someone will hear it on the moon?
We are nothing in a very large playground, to assume we make enought noise to be noticed.....
Voyager is our proof of existence?
How big is that probe?
There are almost 7G people on this planet, making noise.
Someone is going to notice that piece of junk who barely has enought power to broadcast back to us....
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
In college I did a paper on the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) and found an amazing array of info, Greg mentioned the Bussard Ramjet which is amazing fascinating in and of itself.
The other one that always blew me away was Drakes equation, which is essentially a formula to figure out how many intelligent civilizations there might be in the Milky Way galaxy:
The Drake equation states that:
N = R^{\ast} \times f_p \times n_e \times f_{\ell} \times f_i \times f_c \times L \!
where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
The mind numbing thing about this is that it's only for our home galaxy, then apply towards the rest of the universe... Drake came up with a a value of 10...
In college I did a paper on the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) and found an amazing array of info, Greg mentioned the Bussard Ramjet which is amazing fascinating in and of itself.
The other one that always blew me away was Drakes equation, which is essentially a formula to figure out how many intelligent civilizations there might be in the Milky Way galaxy:
The Drake equation states that:
N = R^{\ast} \times f_p \times n_e \times f_{\ell} \times f_i \times f_c \times L \!
where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
The mind numbing thing about this is that it's only for our home galaxy, then apply towards the rest of the universe... Drake came up with a a value of 10...
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only problem with the Drake Equation is that most of the terms in it are still undefinable. </div></div>
I totally agree, I think the number has gotten smaller, Drake came up with the number 10, I believe there are newer arguments that update the numbers to be smaller than one.
It's all open to interpretation, which I think makes it more interesting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only problem with the Drake Equation is that most of the terms in it are still undefinable. </div></div>
I totally agree, I think the number has gotten smaller, Drake came up with the number 10, I believe there are newer arguments that update the numbers to be smaller than one.
It's all open to interpretation, which I think makes it more interesting.
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...I believe there are newer arguments that update the numbers to be smaller than one.</div></div> Yes, and according to the aerodynamicists, the bumble bee should be flightless...
Our comprehension and interpretation of the terms is pretty inconsequential. The universe simply <span style="font-style: italic">is</span>, regardless of our ability to comprehend. I wonder what it did, and how it managed to do it without us for all those billions of years before we stepped out onto the veldt. Like Ma Universe really cares that some loinclothed aborogine clutched someone else's beating heart in their hand, gazed skyward, and proclaimed to one and all that this all must end some day late in the year 2012?
Right!
We overvalue our importance by many orders of magnitude. The Universe is not only inattentive of our concerns, it's is reckless and contemptuous of life in general. I wonder what part in all that arithmetic hubris is the factor for integrating the presence of planet killer asteroids. You want to know where those extraterretrial intelligences are? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I know where at least some of them went. Up in smoke. It's been here before, it's coming again, and that's a plain and irrefutable fact.
The thing that gets me is how many Neo Luddites are bent hell for leather on impeding our species collective efforts to spread out and get all our eggs out of this single, fragile basket. It's akin to nothing short of burning the lifeboats on a helpless and sinking ship. Self esteem and zero tolerance for non-preferred behavior hold our attention inward while the rock that's got our name on it is gradually, inexorably orbiting closer. This planet has limited resources; a lot, but limited. I've got to believe that we were granted them, and the knowledge to use at least part of them, for the express purpose of bootstrapping the species up and out. But do we? I know that when that last dude turns out the lights, he's just gonna <span style="font-style: italic">have</span> to be asking himself, "What the HELL were we thinking...?".
I dont spend my nights trembling in my bed with visions of bright flashes and fiery trails in the sky. But the Universe could give a damn what I do in my bed. It has its own plans, and extinction is on that list. Bruce Willis' and Ben Affleck's box office appeal aside, the <span style="font-style: italic">Armageddon</span> scenario doesn't even come close, folks.
We really <span style="font-style: italic">do</span> need to get our asses in gear before we convert our last resources into welfare checks.
Greg
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...I believe there are newer arguments that update the numbers to be smaller than one.</div></div> Yes, and according to the aerodynamicists, the bumble bee should be flightless...
Our comprehension and interpretation of the terms is pretty inconsequential. The universe simply <span style="font-style: italic">is</span>, regardless of our ability to comprehend. I wonder what it did, and how it managed to do it without us for all those billions of years before we stepped out onto the veldt. Like Ma Universe really cares that some loinclothed aborogine clutched someone else's beating heart in their hand, gazed skyward, and proclaimed to one and all that this all must end some day late in the year 2012?
Right!
We overvalue our importance by many orders of magnitude. The Universe is not only inattentive of our concerns, it's is reckless and contemptuous of life in general. I wonder what part in all that arithmetic hubris is the factor for integrating the presence of planet killer asteroids. You want to know where those extraterretrial intelligences are? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I know where at least some of them went. Up in smoke. It's been here before, it's coming again, and that's a plain and irrefutable fact.
The thing that gets me is how many Neo Luddites are bent hell for leather on impeding our species collective efforts to spread out and get all our eggs out of this single, fragile basket. It's akin to nothing short of burning the lifeboats on a helpless and sinking ship. Self esteem and zero tolerance for non-preferred behavior hold our attention inward while the rock that's got our name on it is gradually, inexorably orbiting closer. This planet has limited resources; a lot, but limited. I've got to believe that we were granted them, and the knowledge to use at least part of them, for the express purpose of bootstrapping the species up and out. But do we? I know that when that last dude turns out the lights, he's just gonna <span style="font-style: italic">have</span> to be asking himself, "What the HELL were we thinking...?".
I dont spend my nights trembling in my bed with visions of bright flashes and fiery trails in the sky. But the Universe could give a damn what I do in my bed. It has its own plans, and extinction is on that list. Bruce Willis' and Ben Affleck's box office appeal aside, the <span style="font-style: italic">Armageddon</span> scenario doesn't even come close, folks.
We really <span style="font-style: italic">do</span> need to get our asses in gear before we convert our last resources into welfare checks.
Greg
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
We really <span style="font-style: italic">do</span> need to get our asses in gear before we convert our last resources into welfare checks.
Greg </div></div>
Good luck on that one. How many people these days do you find reading books, looking through telescopes, and playing with model rockets vs. twittering on their iphones?
I remember building submarines at the local pool out of plastic cups and learning about hydrostatic pressure in the diving well (trapped bees for crew, about a 50% mortality rate). I remember perfecting my paper airplane gliders and stunt planes and throwing them off a 4 story building, and learning about riding thermals off the blacktop. Now I see 6 year olds with cell phones texting about the latest hollywood bs.
Most people no longer care how something works, only that it does work. And honestly, what's the motivation for taking something apart and learning how to fix it when it's cheaper and easier to replace rather than repair? Why accumulate knowledge the old fashioned way when you can just pull up wikipedia on your handheld computer?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
We really <span style="font-style: italic">do</span> need to get our asses in gear before we convert our last resources into welfare checks.
Greg </div></div>
Good luck on that one. How many people these days do you find reading books, looking through telescopes, and playing with model rockets vs. twittering on their iphones?
I remember building submarines at the local pool out of plastic cups and learning about hydrostatic pressure in the diving well (trapped bees for crew, about a 50% mortality rate). I remember perfecting my paper airplane gliders and stunt planes and throwing them off a 4 story building, and learning about riding thermals off the blacktop. Now I see 6 year olds with cell phones texting about the latest hollywood bs.
Most people no longer care how something works, only that it does work. And honestly, what's the motivation for taking something apart and learning how to fix it when it's cheaper and easier to replace rather than repair? Why accumulate knowledge the old fashioned way when you can just pull up wikipedia on your handheld computer?
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
Indeed, the more you study learn about the Universe, the more you learn that it's completely indifferent to us and just about every single point out there, except for a very thin margin here on Earth, is quite lethal to us. This makes it increasingly obvious to me that we're just one of the many rare results of hydrogen atoms over 13.7 billion years.
Indeed, the more you study learn about the Universe, the more you learn that it's completely indifferent to us and just about every single point out there, except for a very thin margin here on Earth, is quite lethal to us. This makes it increasingly obvious to me that we're just one of the many rare results of hydrogen atoms over 13.7 billion years.
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
I like my world, and I like the people in it; some more than others. I think the species has potential if we can get our heads out of our butts and latch our eyes onto something, anything, as longs as it is <span style="font-style: italic">outward</span>.
The Vietnam War did a lot of bad things to this country.
Among them, it supplanted our most intrepid achievements and derailed their logical outcomes. It undermined a people's ability to entrust their government with meaningful tasks, which were only further undermined by spectacular and sensationally publicised failures set against the background of that mistrust.
Physical plant was abandoned in place, vast arrays of contracts were wound down and terminated, entire fields of knowledge and inquiry were halted dead in their tracks, and the people with the necessary knowledge were pensioned off and encouraged to stagnate; their message was not going to be conveyed anyway, and they were not going to be empowered to pass on what they knew to a younger generation.
What that did to a Nation's vitality, economy, and purpose has yet to be fully comprehended.
Today we reap the harvest of that indifference and neglect. Today, we need to look beyond our own borders to see the logical framework that others have built upon the foundations we crafted at the cost of a decade's worth of national dedication and a number of extraordinary lives.
How blase of us to say,"No, we have more important work to do down here on Earth, in the cities, in the factories, in the trading pits". While I can clearly agree these are areas needing our attention, I can think, personally, of nothing that could be more Nationally fruitful than the intensity of fervor I was immersed within during my brief and comparatively insignificant days with the Apollo program. Do the one thing, and the others follow. Few other single things could claim such merit.
Don't look to Washington to reverse this headlong plunge away from the future. Their course is set and their minds are closed.
The Leadership says it is up to the private sector (which is currently flat upon its collective ass. Where's the bailout for the species' destiny?) to make this work.
OK, then I call on government to allow the private sector to pursue this option without the customary overburden of taxation. Let investors contribute, and commercial concerns do business in such a manner as if the project was an NPO. Don't throw the problem to the dogs, then radically downsize the dogs' food bowls. One way to speed and economize the project would be to exempt it from the bid procedures that resulted in enormously inflated prices for things like hammers and toilet bowls. Let's get OSHA's nose outta NASA's ass. Let's take government mandated social engineering clusterf*cks out of the mix.
There, I feel better already...
Greg
I like my world, and I like the people in it; some more than others. I think the species has potential if we can get our heads out of our butts and latch our eyes onto something, anything, as longs as it is <span style="font-style: italic">outward</span>.
The Vietnam War did a lot of bad things to this country.
Among them, it supplanted our most intrepid achievements and derailed their logical outcomes. It undermined a people's ability to entrust their government with meaningful tasks, which were only further undermined by spectacular and sensationally publicised failures set against the background of that mistrust.
Physical plant was abandoned in place, vast arrays of contracts were wound down and terminated, entire fields of knowledge and inquiry were halted dead in their tracks, and the people with the necessary knowledge were pensioned off and encouraged to stagnate; their message was not going to be conveyed anyway, and they were not going to be empowered to pass on what they knew to a younger generation.
What that did to a Nation's vitality, economy, and purpose has yet to be fully comprehended.
Today we reap the harvest of that indifference and neglect. Today, we need to look beyond our own borders to see the logical framework that others have built upon the foundations we crafted at the cost of a decade's worth of national dedication and a number of extraordinary lives.
How blase of us to say,"No, we have more important work to do down here on Earth, in the cities, in the factories, in the trading pits". While I can clearly agree these are areas needing our attention, I can think, personally, of nothing that could be more Nationally fruitful than the intensity of fervor I was immersed within during my brief and comparatively insignificant days with the Apollo program. Do the one thing, and the others follow. Few other single things could claim such merit.
Don't look to Washington to reverse this headlong plunge away from the future. Their course is set and their minds are closed.
The Leadership says it is up to the private sector (which is currently flat upon its collective ass. Where's the bailout for the species' destiny?) to make this work.
OK, then I call on government to allow the private sector to pursue this option without the customary overburden of taxation. Let investors contribute, and commercial concerns do business in such a manner as if the project was an NPO. Don't throw the problem to the dogs, then radically downsize the dogs' food bowls. One way to speed and economize the project would be to exempt it from the bid procedures that resulted in enormously inflated prices for things like hammers and toilet bowls. Let's get OSHA's nose outta NASA's ass. Let's take government mandated social engineering clusterf*cks out of the mix.
There, I feel better already...
Greg
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
Humans being the only form of "intelligent" life in the universe, is as likely as humans being the only form of life on this planet.
"We are the universe trying to understand itself" Is the best general answer for the time being.
Humans being the only form of "intelligent" life in the universe, is as likely as humans being the only form of life on this planet.
"We are the universe trying to understand itself" Is the best general answer for the time being.
Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking
Indeed, life may be everywhere, but intelligent life such as humans is likely pretty rare. Given the relatively short lifespans of civilizations, there could be thousands like us in our own Milky Way yet probably not at the same time. There could be a space faring civilization a relatively close 5,000 light years away and if they headed over to say "hi" they might find that we died off by the time they got here.
Life is just a bi-product of star formation - the building blocks of everything we're made up of came from the core of a massive star long dead. Yes, without ambiguity or assumption I can say positively "The stars died so we could be here."
As physicist Brian Cox said, "we are what happens if you give hydrogen atoms billions of years to evolve." So as Fredo said, intelligent life is just the Universe trying to understand itself.
Indeed, life may be everywhere, but intelligent life such as humans is likely pretty rare. Given the relatively short lifespans of civilizations, there could be thousands like us in our own Milky Way yet probably not at the same time. There could be a space faring civilization a relatively close 5,000 light years away and if they headed over to say "hi" they might find that we died off by the time they got here.
Life is just a bi-product of star formation - the building blocks of everything we're made up of came from the core of a massive star long dead. Yes, without ambiguity or assumption I can say positively "The stars died so we could be here."
As physicist Brian Cox said, "we are what happens if you give hydrogen atoms billions of years to evolve." So as Fredo said, intelligent life is just the Universe trying to understand itself.
Similar threads
