this is absolutly the most awesome awe inspiring pictue i have ever seen

[rkell87]

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Here you go, high resolution link to the Hubble Ultra Deep Field shot. Dial up users, if you are still out there, don't even bother. All those galaxies, all those trillions of stars, and we're on the only the ball of dust and super nova left over materials that coalesced to have sentient beings? I don't think so.

http://www.on.br/site_edu_dist_2008...-distante/imagens/hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg

There are more galaxies than there are grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts combined.

If you take 4 cubic kilometers of air space and throw a single grain of sand into each one of those four cubic kilometers, then you have an approximation of the density of galaxies in the Universe albiet the grain of sand is grossly too large. Something like 1/10th the size of a grain of table salt is better.

Along with this site, my email, and a few other sites, Space.com gets a visit by me daily. There was a great article a few weeks ago showing the distribution of galaxies isn't random or haphazard, they're bound together in gravitational filaments and clusters.

 

[rkell87]

link please

hubble 3D comes out today, maybe i can convince my girl to go see it in austin on sunday

 

[SaltwaterServr]

The link is up there for the Ultra Deep Field shot. The article for the clusters and filaments I cannot find.

Edit: My bad, the full res shot. You need over 100 megs of free RAM just to display it. Amazing. Over 10,000 objects in it.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/hudf/hudf.jpg

 

[daschoo]

stars are pretty but of course not a single one of them can support any lifeforms. lets just ignore the odds because we would know

 

[burmafrd]

was that sarcasm?

 

[daschoo]

could you tell?

 

[DFWJC]

I've seen this a few times and it always amazes me.

Do you know what the odds are that our planet is located at such an ideal location and time, with all of the perfectly concocted ingrediantes to support the millions of life forms that it does? It is immeasurable.

But as we can see, the vastness of space as we know it is also currently immeasurable. So with trillions upon trillions of odds against us being here crossed with the same or greater opportunities of it happening somehwere else....the odds seem good that there is (or was or will be) life as evolved as we are somehwere.

 

[CliffnDallas]

I've seen this a few times and it always amazes me.

Do you know what the odds are that our planet is located at such an ideal location and time, with all of the perfectly concocted ingrediantes to support the millions of life forms that it does? It is immeasurable.

But as we can see, the vastness of space as we know it is also currently immeasurable. So with trillions upon trillions of odds against us being here crossed with the same or greater opportunities of it happening somehwere else....the odds seem good that there is (or was or will be) life as evolved as we are somehwere.

Is there a way to estimate the number of technologically advanced civilizations that might exist in our Galaxy? While working at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, West Virginia, Dr. Frank Drake conceived a means to mathematically estimate the number of worlds that might harbor beings with technology sufficient to communicate across the vast gulfs of interstellar space. The Drake Equation, as it came to be known, was formulated in 1961 and is generally accepted by the scientific community.


N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L

where,

N = The number of communicative civilizations
R* = The rate of formation of suitable stars (stars such as our Sun)
fp = The fraction of those stars with planets. (Current evidence indicates that planetary systems may be common for stars like the Sun.)
ne = The number of Earth-like worlds per planetary system
fl = The fraction of those Earth-like planets where life actually develops
fi = The fraction of life sites where intelligence develops
fc = The fraction of communicative planets (those on which electromagnetic communications technology develops)
L = The "lifetime" of communicating civilizations

Frank Drake's own current solution to the Drake Equation estimates 10,000 communicative civilizations in the Milky Way. Dr. Drake, who serves on the SETI League's advisory board, has personally endorsed SETI's planned all-sky survey.

 

[daschoo]

I've seen this a few times and it always amazes me.

Do you know what the odds are that our planet is located at such an ideal location and time, with all of the perfectly concocted ingrediantes to support the millions of life forms that it does? It is immeasurable.

But as we can see, the vastness of space as we know it is also currently immeasurable. So with trillions upon trillions of odds against us being here crossed with the same or greater opportunities of it happening somehwere else....the odds seem good that there is (or was or will be) life as evolved as we are somehwere.

i don't get the argument that we would have discovered proof by now. we haven't even been to another planet in our own galaxy. if there is life out there somewhere then why would they automatically be so far in advance of us? even if they were would they be that far advanced that they could travel the times and distances required for us to notice them? then if they could does that mean they would? i don't pretend to know a lot about it but hell the number of stars you can see with the naked eye never mind with advanced telescopes etc suggests that the probability of our sun being the sole one that supports life is minuscule.

 

[DFWJC]

i don't get the argument that we would have discovered proof by now. we haven't even been to another planet in our own galaxy. if there is life out there somewhere then why would they automatically be so far in advance of us? even if they were would they be that far advanced that they could travel the times and distances required for us to notice them? then if they could does that mean they would? i don't pretend to know a lot about it but hell the number of stars you can see with the naked eye never mind with advanced telescopes etc suggests that the probability of our sun being the sole one that supports life is minuscule.

You're right, there is no reason why a life form would be more or less advanced.
Now if you say a life form somehow was able to find us...then I'd say, yes, they would be most likely be much more advanced.

The vastness of it all is what blows me away.

There's one area that we may differ....I see overwhelming evidence of design at all sizes, but especially at the microscopic level and smaller. Evidence of design means there was a designer. But we are below cockroaches in intelligence compared to such a designer so trying to figure it all out is FAR beyond anyone on this planet. The obvious question is if there's a designer, where did the designer come from? It's enough to drive nuts even the brightest--which are still dumb as a box of rocks relativley speaking.

 

[Doomsday101]

Thanks I alway like seeing pictures of Uranus.

 

[CliffnDallas]

People understand that the further out you look. The further back in time you go. Some of those stars no longer exist. Whole worlds have formed lived and died a cinder, whole races went from ooze to sentience, to looking up at the night sky with wonder. Only to die alone in the vastness of space. All in the time it's taken for that light to reach your eye.

 

[Doomsday101]

People understand that the further out you look. The further back in time you go. Some of those stars no longer exist. Whole worlds have formed lived and died a cinder, whole races went from ooze to sentience, to looking up at the night sky with wonder. Only to die alone in the vastness of space. All in the time it's taken for that light to reach your eye.

To boldly go where no man has gone before.

 

[theogt]

i don't get the argument that we would have discovered proof by now. we haven't even been to another planet in our own galaxy. if there is life out there somewhere then why would they automatically be so far in advance of us? even if they were would they be that far advanced that they could travel the times and distances required for us to notice them? then if they could does that mean they would? i don't pretend to know a lot about it but hell the number of stars you can see with the naked eye never mind with advanced telescopes etc suggests that the probability of our sun being the sole one that supports life is minuscule.

The argument is the same as the argument that there is technologically advanced life on other planets. It's just statistically likely. Given the high chance of similar life-bearing planets to ours and given the length of time that those planets have existed (or already come into and moved out of existence), it is likely that if it were at all possible to find another planet with life, reach it, or communicate with it, it would have happened. The only explanation is that there would be a conscious decision not to make contact (i.e., as in the movie Contact.)

 

[ScipioCowboy]

The universe is incredibly vast; however, if it wasn't the exact size it is, it would be unable to support the formation of any life--at least life as we know it. So, in all likelihood, if not for the immensity, we wouldn't even be here to observe it.

The vastness of space is the very reason I doubt we've been contacted by aliens. It's like finding a needle in a billion haystacks.

 

[Eskimo]

I'm not well versed in astrophysics but it would seem as though the parameters of the Drake equation could not be estimated with any reasonable degree of certainty rendering it a pointless exercise for estimation of the number of planets where life exists.

Part of the problem lies in the need for lighter elements like nitrogen, oxygen, carbon and hydrogen to be present in large amounts for life as we know it. The problem lies in that when planets form they are at extremely high temperatures and may cause these elements to be burned away so to speak. It has been theorized that we got the elements here after the surface cooled from frequent meteor strikes which deposited the elements we needed in sufficient quantity. The irony of it is this is same putative cause for the multiple extinctions that have happened.

The complexity of the science that is being done today is amazing.

 

[CliffnDallas]

The universe is incredibly vast; however, if it wasn't the exact size it is, it would be unable to support the formation of any life--at least life as we know it. So, in all likelihood, if not for the immensity, we wouldn't even be here to observe it.

The vastness of space is the very reason I doubt we've been contacted by aliens. It's like finding a needle in a billion haystacks.

Light travels at 186000 miles a second. A light year is the distance light travels in a year. The universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide. Do the math.

 

[joseephuss]

The argument is the same as the argument that there is technologically advanced life on other planets. It's just statistically likely. Given the high chance of similar life-bearing planets to ours and given the length of time that those planets have existed (or already come into and moved out of existence), it is likely that if it were at all possible to find another planet with life, reach it, or communicate with it, it would have happened. The only explanation is that there would be a conscious decision not to make contact (i.e., as in the movie Contact.)

That still doesn't mean that Earth would be one of the planets in that scenario. Planet A may have found and communicated with Planet B, but neither has found or communicated with Planet C yet.

Planet A and Planet B may both have already found Earth, but did so at a time when there were only dinosaurs roaming around. They then decided it was not worth coming back.

There are just so many variables involved. There can even be more than one universe. Other universes can exist outside the boarders of our very own. Each containing trillions of its own galaxies.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I'm not well versed in astrophysics but it would seem as though the parameters of the Drake equation could not be estimated with any reasonable degree of certainty rendering it a pointless exercise for estimation of the number of planets where life exists.

These are my sentiments regarding Drake equation. The values seems so arbitrary and completely subjective.