No one would have believed that minds immeasurably superior....

[Mugshot]

I'm always slightly miffed that any consideration of "alien life" is completely based on humanoids. So basically a planet can only be considered a possible for life if there's water on it; if it's temperature range is the same as earth etc. It seems very narrow minded for people who are meant to be really intelligent.

And consider Douglas Adams' view point that if there is an infinite number of planets, a planet inhabited by walking mattresses changes from a possibility to a certainty.

God is a mattress???

 

[Tin Pot]

I'm always slightly miffed that any consideration of "alien life" is completely based on humanoids. So basically a planet can only be considered a possible for life if there's water on it; if it's temperature range is the same as earth etc. It seems very narrow minded for people who are meant to be really intelligent.

And consider Douglas Adams' view point that if there is an infinite number of planets, a planet inhabited by walking mattresses changes from a possibility to a certainty.

“Follow the water” has long been the mantra of our NASA's search for alien life in the Solar System and beyond. We continue seeking conditions where water can remain liquid either on a world’s surface or elsewhere within a planetary body. This approach makes a lot of sense. Life as we know it requires water for the complex chemistry that enables growth and reproduction. Where there is water, we believe life has a chance.

“Basically, all active cellular systems live in watery environments,” said John Hallsworth, an environmental microbiologist at
Queen’s University Belfast. “Without an aqueous milieu both inside the cell and outside, microbes can die, or, at best, manage to survive in an inactive state.”

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...ms-survive-without-water-beyond-the-cell.html

 

[martint235]

God is a mattress???

I never said I was a mattress.

 

[TVC]

I think there is a serious ethical issue here. NASA has spent on average $16 billion per year on space exploration. It's great news that there might be other life out there, but lets face it, they're not going to be humanoid and/or capable of communicating with us I doubt, and they'd be so far away that by the time they'd received our e-mail they would all be dead! I know we are supposed to explore and learn, but some things just seem too far out of reach (literally) to be of any future benefit. I doubt they will find a cure for Cancer lurking on these planets.

Can't some things remain a mystery? I totally get the idea of "nothing ventured, nothing gained" and I appreciate all of the research and findings that have come about as a result of research and exploration. But it's just too far away.

If you want to talk about ethics then I think you will find there is considerably more money spent on arming the world, supporting failed banks and general lining rich men's pockets than on space exploration that has given us so much knowledge and so many products that we rely on. The ISS isn't just a jolly wagon for astro's it is a working lab doing beneficial science, including work in cell division and mutation which does contribute to cancer research.

 

[Mugshot]

If you want to talk about ethics then I think you will find there is considerably more money spent on arming the world, supporting failed banks and general lining rich men's pockets than on space exploration that has given us so much knowledge and so many products that we rely on. The ISS isn't just a jolly wagon for astro's it is a working lab doing beneficial science, including work in cell division and mutation which does contribute to cancer research.

Quite, if the figure quoted is correct my first thought was that it's an awful lot less than I thought it would be.

 

[TVC]

One of Google's finest.

 

[Lullabelle]

NASA have called a press conference tomorrow about a major discovery outside of our Solar System.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...oplanet-sun-planets-news-latest-a7590281.html

Have they found life? A planet capable of sustaining life? The ball used in Gareth Southgate's penalty miss at Euro 96?

 

[ufkacbln]

I'm always slightly miffed that any consideration of "alien life" is completely based on humanoids. So basically a planet can only be considered a possible for life if there's water on it; if it's temperature range is the same as earth etc. It seems very narrow minded for people who are meant to be really intelligent.

And consider Douglas Adams' view point that if there is an infinite number of planets, a planet inhabited by walking mattresses changes from a possibility to a certainty.

He also proved the we as a life form do not exist and are merely a figment of our own imagination?

“It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.”

 

[martint235]

He also proved the we as a life form do not exist and are merely a figment of our own imagination?

And that explains so much about what I see on a daily basis. Particularly the "deranged" bit

 

[nickyboy]

“It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.”

Appreciating I may be taking this a tad too seriously.....

1% of an infinitely large number is also an infinitely large number, not finite

 

[Tin Pot]

“It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.”

Appreciating I may be taking this a tad too seriously.....

1% of an infinitely large number is also an infinitely large number, not finite

Nope.


limb→af(x)f(b)=limb→aax/(a−x)ab/(a−b)=limb→aax(a−b)ab(a−x)=ax(a−a)a2(a−x)=0.

If the denominator approaches ∞ while the numerator approaches a finite number, then the whole fraction approaches 0.

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1722483/finding-percentage-when-infinity-is-involved

The flaw is actually assuming that there are a finite number of inhabited worlds in an infinite universe.

 

[martint235]

Nope.


limb→af(x)f(b)=limb→aax/(a−x)ab/(a−b)=limb→aax(a−b)ab(a−x)=ax(a−a)a2(a−x)=0.

If the denominator approaches ∞ while the numerator approaches a finite number, then the whole fraction approaches 0.

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1722483/finding-percentage-when-infinity-is-involved

The flaw is actually assuming that there are a finite number of inhabited worlds in an infinite universe.

Some people may have too much time on their hands.......

 

[nickyboy]

Nope.


limb→af(x)f(b)=limb→aax/(a−x)ab/(a−b)=limb→aax(a−b)ab(a−x)=ax(a−a)a2(a−x)=0.

If the denominator approaches ∞ while the numerator approaches a finite number, then the whole fraction approaches 0.

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1722483/finding-percentage-when-infinity-is-involved

The flaw is actually assuming that there are a finite number of inhabited worlds in an infinite universe.

Again at the risk of taking this a bit too seriously.....

The issue is one of understanding what "infinite" actually means. It isn't a number that you can classify as a denominator. It is without end. Therefore any part of infinity is also without end. The tiniest part of infinity is also infinite. And the tiniest part of the tiniest part is also infinite ad infinitum (haha)

So in this example, the numerator is not approaching a finite number, it is also infinite. It's a conceptual issue, not mathematical

 

[Tin Pot]

Again at the risk of taking this a bit too seriously.....

The issue is one of understanding what "infinite" actually means. It isn't a number that you can classify as a denominator. It is without end. Therefore any part of infinity is also without end. The tiniest part of infinity is also infinite. And the tiniest part of the tiniest part is also infinite ad infinitum (haha)

So in this example, the numerator is not approaching a finite number, it is also infinite. It's a conceptual issue, not mathematical

Umm, no.

There is no residual risk, the event has been realised.

There is no issue with understanding infinity.

Your statement on the numerator agrees with me.

 

[Bimble]

How do we know the universe is infinite?