If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   US government official says he "absolutely" believes there is life on other planets   (theatlantic.com) divider line 298
    More: Interesting, NASA, Mars Rover Spirit, Charles Elachi, planets  
•       •       •

12521 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Nov 2012 at 2:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



298 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-02 04:19:38 PM

Big Man On Campus: Harv72b: Big Man On Campus: I'm suggesting that saying you "believe" something to be true (as that NASA employee did) means you do not have conclusive data on it, and hence shouldn't be misusing your position as a scientist to influence others on where the truth resides on the matter.

At least, that's your belief on the matter.

Well it's fine to want to follow someone because you like their beliefs and find them intelligent, that's fine, just call it what it is....

RELIGION.


"Hope" and "Change" 2008.
 
2012-11-02 04:20:39 PM

Harv72b: Harv72b: You do understand the difference between a statistical probability and a fairy tail, yes?

Shut up, fairies have tails and nobody can convince me otherwise.


You taking medication for that?
 
2012-11-02 04:20:49 PM
Of course. Didn't you see They Live?

They're living, farking and owning among us.
 
2012-11-02 04:20:54 PM
ciberido:

Well that was obligatory :)
 
2012-11-02 04:21:45 PM

Harv72b: Harv72b: You do understand the difference between a statistical probability and a fairy tail, yes?

Shut up, fairies have tails and nobody can convince me otherwise.


It's Ferry tale!!!! Jesus!!!! You know like boat stories.
 
2012-11-02 04:23:53 PM

muck4doo: You taking medication for that?


The meds spoil all the fun.
 
2012-11-02 04:24:50 PM

muck4doo: Aliens killed off the dinosaurs. We're next.


but what if I don't want to kill the dinosaurs.
 
2012-11-02 04:24:57 PM
keiverarrow Statistically, it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. However, it should be noted that we've never even been able to communicate effectively with the domestic house cat, among the other creatures our planet has to offer. Let's hope they're more like dogs if we ever meet any.

House cats? How about tigers?

Never did finish the Ringworld Series, wonder what happened to the 800 lb. Kzin, `Speaker to Animals'?
 
2012-11-02 04:29:21 PM

T.rex: Yes... because when i want an unbiased opinion about extra-terrestrial beings, i ask the guy who's job depends on the perceived need for space travel.

If i had a trillion grains of multi-colored sand, and tossed them up in the air, and measured how they landed, that doesn't mean that i could ever exactly replicate that ever again, even if i tried an infinite number of times. I don't care how big the universe is... That doesn't mean, the impossible will suddenly turn possible.


In fact, that's just what "infinite" does mean.

And we haven't even brought up multiverses yet.. If your mind needs some blowing, here you go: 
Link
 
2012-11-02 04:34:44 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: The lack of contact from intelligent beings suggests that 300,000 km/sec is a harsh mistress, that there are no shortcuts around the speed of light.


You don't understand the scale of the Universe. That's like being dropped in the ocean at a random location, and saying "there must not be any ships".

The odds of another intellligence outside the solar system showing up randomly is nonexistent. If they come here, they were looking for us, regardless of any speed limitations.
 
2012-11-02 04:36:12 PM

Harv72b: You still do, unless and until that probability actually reaches zero. And even then you'd have to ignore the probability that it would climb back above zero again once that happened.


Suppose you have a function for expectation of how many times an event occurs within some time interval t: E(t). For simplicity, say each t represents a span of a second within the lifetime of the universe. For highly unlikely events, E(t) would be extremely close to zero.

Then, for the lifetime of the universe, assuming infinite time going forward, you'd have an infinite sum of each E(t), one term for every second, giving you a total expectation of how many times that event occurs over the lifetime of the Universe. If E(t) approaches zero, even if it never reaches zero, it most certainly could result in a total expectation that is non-infinite; in fact the sum can be arbitrarily small. Look up infinite sums if you don't believe me.

This could also be done with integrals, but that's more complicated.
 
2012-11-02 04:36:52 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: If they come here, they were looking for us, regardless of any speed limitations.


I wouldn't be surprised if the lease is up, frankly, and they were here to evict.
 
2012-11-02 04:41:36 PM

Magnanimous_J: If nothing is truly impossible, just highly improbable, but time is infinite, then wouldn't everything possible have already happened infinite times before?


Yes. Why do you keep asking?
 
2012-11-02 04:43:43 PM

OnlyM3: We've believed there was a reasonable chance there was life on the moon . Remember this?...


I think the big concern was that the germs they brought with them might have mutated due to cosmic ray exposure and become something dangerous.
As I understand it was a bit of a shock when Apollo 12 brought back one of the unmanned probes, and it was thought that some bacteria had persevered through the radiation, vacuum, and temperature extremes. This may have been debunked later, i.e., the probe was re-contaminated on the trip back or something.
 
2012-11-02 04:44:35 PM

Evil High Priest: Magnanimous_J: If nothing is truly impossible, just highly improbable, but time is infinite, then wouldn't everything possible have already happened infinite times before?

Yes. Why do you keep asking?


I'm guessing "because none of it's in the Byebull."
 
2012-11-02 04:44:41 PM

The Banana Thug: I came in to say exactly this. It's very statistically improbable that we're the ONLY planet to have any life form, given how infinitely massive the universe is and the untold thousands upon thousandsbillions upon billions of galaxies yet to be discovered.


Fixed
 
2012-11-02 04:52:45 PM

Sybarite: I tend to believe the Rare Earth hypothesis that while simple, unicellular life is probably fairly common, highly complex life is likely to be quite rare.


I think that it is very likely that "intelligent" life always self-destructs because they eventually find power/technology before they are wise enough to wield it.

Furthermore, evolution is essentially competitive meaning that the "winners" will usually be the most greedy and most into domination, and that evolutionary baggage will generally lead them to eventually create some sort of ultimate weapon with which they destroy themselves. And the rare peaceful creatures would eventually make a mistake (e.g. release a biological agent accidentally, create an environmental disaster, end up in some religious fatalistic demise, getting addicted to virtual reality or some super drug, etc.)

There are just so many ways where advances in technology can screw you up, eventually technology will be sufficiently powerful that it creates existential threats.
 
2012-11-02 04:54:02 PM

machoprogrammer: Intelligent life? It probably exists. See: WOW Signal

Cheron: I find it mind blowing to look at the Hubble eXtreme Deep Field and think that one tiny patch of sky has 5,500 galaxies in it. To think that we are it is hubris

I thought there was 100,000 galaxies in that image?

There are something like a trillion galaxies in the observable universe, and around 250 billion stars per galaxies. To think we are alone is just idiotic.


Nope, it's a small patch of sky (slightly larger to our eye than Copernicus), and "only" 5,500 are visible in the shot.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/xdf.html
 
2012-11-02 04:59:14 PM
WayneKerr: I think that Atari was really hot when Voyager was launched.


The Atari 2600 was released in October 1977. Voyager 2 was launched in August, and Voyager 1 was launched in September of that year.
 
2012-11-02 05:01:44 PM
You know what if they would just come out and say what they know this globalization thing they are pulling would go a lot more smoothly.

Starship troopers anyone?
 
2012-11-02 05:05:45 PM
Really? NASA JPL Director, very much interested in getting funding and keeping the public interested in space, makes a claim such as this? Really?
 
2012-11-02 05:06:19 PM

Harv72b: T.rex: If i had a trillion grains of multi-colored sand, and tossed them up in the air, and measured how they landed, that doesn't mean that i could ever exactly replicate that ever again, even if i tried an infinite number of times

Actually, if you did it an infinite amount of times then you would not only exactly replicate it, you would exactly replicate it an infinite amount of times.

/This is the crap I think about at night when I should be sleeping.


If you agree that there are infinite possibilities of things, then by the same token, you will have to acknowledge that there are an INFINITE number of things that will happen only once in the history of the universe. .... Life for instance.
 
2012-11-02 05:07:13 PM
There is also a good chance that none of you exist at all, and the "universe" I'm experiencing is just some very elaborate computer simulation. Prove me wrong.
 
2012-11-02 05:11:37 PM

Evil High Priest: There is also a good chance that none of you exist at all, and the "universe" I'm experiencing is just some very elaborate computer simulation. Prove me wrong.


An indirect proof would take the combined resources of all the Internets. Are you mad, man?
 
2012-11-02 05:12:10 PM
There are those who believe...that life here began out there, far across the Universe...with tribes of humans...who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians...or the Toltecs...or the Mayans...

/Sorry, It has been running through my head since I started reading this thread.
//Why should I be the only one to suffer.
 
2012-11-02 05:13:51 PM

trappedspirit: Really? NASA JPL Director, very much interested in getting funding and keeping the public interested in space, makes a claim such as this? Really?


Sigh. See my comment above.
 
2012-11-02 05:14:51 PM

T.rex: If you agree that there are infinite possibilities of things, then by the same token, you will have to acknowledge that there are an INFINITE number of things that will happen only once in the history of the universe. .... Life for instance.


That's not how infinity works.
 
2012-11-02 05:15:57 PM

whidbey: Evil High Priest: There is also a good chance that none of you exist at all, and the "universe" I'm experiencing is just some very elaborate computer simulation. Prove me wrong.

An indirect proof would take the combined resources of all the Internets. Are you mad, man?


He's not mad but, he is going mad so there is a discount.
 
2012-11-02 05:16:44 PM

xmasbaby: I'm pretty sure our Earth is the planetary equivalent of pre-contact Hawaii. I also think that when we eventually get discovered it will work out about as well for us as it did for pre-contact Hawaiians.


Does that mean my descendants are going to be even fatter (!) and have a love for whatever the space version of Spam is?
 
2012-11-02 05:20:15 PM

IrateShadow: Does that mean my descendants are going to be even fatter (!) and have a love for whatever the space version of Spam is?


The space version of Spam is Spam, and Spam is proof that we've been contacted before.

/Or do you think it's a coincidence that Hormel so closely resembles "wormhole"?
 
2012-11-02 05:23:21 PM

Evil Mackerel: whidbey: Evil High Priest: There is also a good chance that none of you exist at all, and the "universe" I'm experiencing is just some very elaborate computer simulation. Prove me wrong.

An indirect proof would take the combined resources of all the Internets. Are you mad, man?

He's not mad but, he is going mad so there is a discount.


I mad, bro?
 
2012-11-02 05:25:07 PM

Harv72b: T.rex: If you agree that there are infinite possibilities of things, then by the same token, you will have to acknowledge that there are an INFINITE number of things that will happen only once in the history of the universe. .... Life for instance.

That's not how infinity works.


Why? break it down... infinite... infinite possibilities. There are infinite things that will happen once, infinite things that will happen twice, three times up to infinity times.... Why wouldn't there be? If you're not putting a cap on any scenario, then the scenario of something happening a single time is just as valid as it happening an infinity times.
 
2012-11-02 05:26:44 PM

Evil High Priest: Evil Mackerel: whidbey: Evil High Priest: There is also a good chance that none of you exist at all, and the "universe" I'm experiencing is just some very elaborate computer simulation. Prove me wrong.

An indirect proof would take the combined resources of all the Internets. Are you mad, man?

He's not mad but, he is going mad so there is a discount.

I mad, bro?


monkeytosstv.com
 
2012-11-02 05:34:30 PM

Evil High Priest: There is also a good chance that none of you exist at all, and the "universe" I'm experiencing is just some very elaborate computer simulation. Prove me wrong.


You've watched The Matrix too many times.
 
2012-11-02 05:34:41 PM

Harv72b: T.rex: If you agree that there are infinite possibilities of things, then by the same token, you will have to acknowledge that there are an INFINITE number of things that will happen only once in the history of the universe. .... Life for instance.

That's not how infinity works.


An infinite series can have a finite sum: consider Zeno's old favorite (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32...) as an example.

That said, for there to be "events that will happen only once" presupposes determinism: not the soundest of assumptions. That's why, when discussing the possibility that there are no other sentient species at this time, I prefer to refer to us as the "first" sentient species rather than the "only" sentient species.

Of course, if one prefers a more pessimistic viewpoint, you could swipe a page from Towing Jehovah and propose the possibility that all other sentient species might once have existed but are now extinct. This has the added bonus of trolling both sides of the debate.
 
2012-11-02 05:35:24 PM

Harv72b:
Point being that "time", as it relates to whatever we conceptualize as "the" universe, begins and ends with it in much the same way that "time", as it relates to me, began on August 11th, 1972 and will end whenever I cease to exist. Neither of these definitions necessarily apply to whatever time (or "everything") actually is.


I think you are referring to the Newtonian idea that absolute time and space are independent. The issue with what you are saying is that your corporeal experience of time does not create time, it exists in a larger universe and is therefor a very imprecise metaphor. Time exists within our bubble as matter and energy exist, and is dependent on relative motion and mass. Lacking relative motion and mass (outside the bubble, if you will), there is no time. Again, with the disclaimer that there may be a lot more research or information that I am missing.
 
2012-11-02 05:35:53 PM

BigNumber12: austin_millbarge: BigNumber12: Wait, wait.

You're telling me that a Director at NASA is delivering a message consistent with the justification for NASA's very existence and continued funding?!? Someone, please catch me before I faint from shock.

[i235.photobucket.com image 442x216]

/thanks for the idiotic comment that allowed me to use this image again


Sooo, my chuckling that the article was based on the obvious answer to a stupid question qualifies as "derp" to you? Clearly Fark is well below your intellectual capacity - why are you even here? Doesn't Mensa have a web forum?

Or did someone just shiat on you in real life, and you're here to transfer your revenge to people you can get away with mouthing off to - complete strangers on the internet?


Obvious answer? Hardly. Canned answer based on ignorance? yes,
And way to sprinkle in some ad hominem attacks to your doubling down on your derp.
 
2012-11-02 05:37:41 PM

screwzloos: Harv72b: T.rex: If i had a trillion grains of multi-colored sand, and tossed them up in the air, and measured how they landed, that doesn't mean that i could ever exactly replicate that ever again, even if i tried an infinite number of times

Actually, if you did it an infinite amount of times then you would not only exactly replicate it, you would exactly replicate it an infinite amount of times.

/This is the crap I think about at night when I should be sleeping.

Bah! You beat me to it. Someone is wrong on the internet!

Now, on the other hand, if you had an infinite number of grains of sand...


...the entire universe would be filled with sand?
 
2012-11-02 05:37:56 PM

trappedspirit: Really? NASA JPL Director, very much interested in getting funding and keeping the public interested in space, makes a claim such as this? Really?


You and BigNumber12 ought to get together and wipe the drool off each others mouths.
 
2012-11-02 05:40:41 PM

Evil High Priest:

And we haven't even brought up multiverses yet.. If your mind needs some blowing, here you go: 
Link


Wait til I'm drinking before you start the theoretical mental masturbation portion of the discussion.

/I posted this in another universe
 
2012-11-02 05:43:11 PM
(Shrug) Life is the null hypothesis at this point. The burden of proof would lie with someone who claims there isn't life elsewhere. What else is new?
 
2012-11-02 05:43:53 PM

BigNumber12: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: The lack of contact from intelligent beings suggests that 300,000 km/sec is a harsh mistress, that there are no shortcuts around the speed of light.


Maybe we're an uncontacted tribe, and they're just respecting our (rather retarded) rate of development.

[i187.photobucket.com image 390x273]



THIS.

Let us not rule out that our planet was seeded prior to the development of human civilization as we know it. Also consider that a "Prime Directive" prohibits other sentient life forms from contacting us directly, as this action would artificially influence the natural progression of humanity.
 
2012-11-02 05:43:58 PM

T.rex: Why? break it down... infinite... infinite possibilities. There are infinite things that will happen once, infinite things that will happen twice, three times up to infinity times.... Why wouldn't there be? If you're not putting a cap on any scenario, then the scenario of something happening a single time is just as valid as it happening an infinity times.


First, let me apologize for being contrite above.

Any time you bring an infinite number of trials into the argument, there can be no finite results. Literally, every single possible outcome will occur an infinite number of times. In the case of the trillion grains of sand argument which you presented earlier, this would mean that they would fall in every possible distribution an infinite number of times; they could not fall in the exact same manner once for an infinite number of times, because "once" is finite. Either you tried your experiment a finite amount of times, or you achieved the same result infinitely.

Understand that I'm not arguing that it's impossible that this is, in fact, the only body of matter in this universe which harbors life. The probability of that is extremely small, but is not absolute zero at this (or any) particular instant in our timeline. My point was that your sand statement was flawed if you allow for an infinite number of tries. And regardless of whether or not Earth harbored 100% of all life in the universe when I typed that sentence, that does not mean that it does now, nor that it did before I typed that sentence; in fact, given an infinite timeline with an infinite number of possibilities, we both blinked out of existence an infinite number of times since I started typing this thought, and we both remain existent an infinite number of times as well.

That's the glory and wonder of infinity, and what makes it so difficult to grasp. Of course, if we are indeed part of infinite universe/multiverse/whatever and/or on an infinite timeline, then there's also an infinite possibility that I'm grasping the concept entirely incorrectly. And correctly.
 
2012-11-02 05:44:49 PM

Ambivalence: Looking back (from our limited perception) it seems that as soon as life was possible on Earth, it was there.


I think that could be called one of the hallmark properties of life as a construct. Life is extremely (to abuse the word) virulent from a chemical and morphological perspective. It moves at the pace of generations, which seems slow to an individual human but is wildfire-fast on a geological scale. How long after the first cells divided was every body of water on the planet teeming with cells? How long after plants could take root were they rooted on every land mass of reasonable age?

Life seems to be a pattern that spreads like fire, filling every niche of the gravity well that houses it.* If we ever solve the puzzle of interstellar travel, I wouldn't be surprised if we discovered that other planetoids have their own patterns already.

* Data on what life can do in terms of exiting its gravity well or traversing to another one is... Thus far inconclusive. ;)
 
2012-11-02 05:57:06 PM

OnlyM3: Why is a government employee saying (s)he believes in anything, NEWS?

Other beliefs held by government employees:

We can close the Patent office since everything possible has been invented

Bush caused the Katrina storm

Todd Akin do I really need to post his "beliefs"?


We've believed there was a reasonable chance there was life on the moon . Remember this?...
[i.telegraph.co.uk image 460x288]


I didn't know they had high def TV back then. shiat looks good.
 
2012-11-02 06:02:52 PM
Time to post this again:

THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT

"They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

"Meat. They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

"There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."

"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"

"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."

"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."

"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."

"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."

"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."

"Maybe they're like the orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage."

"Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take long. Do you have any idea what's the life span of meat?"

"Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside."

"Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through."

"No brain?"

"Oh, there's a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat! That's what I've been trying to tell you."

"So ... what does the thinking?"

"You're not understanding, are you? You're refusing to deal with what I'm telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat."

"Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!"

"Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?"

"Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat."

"Thank you. Finally. Yes. They are indeed made out of meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years."

"Omigod. So what does this meat have in mind?"

"First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the Universe, contact other sentiences, swap ideas and information. The usual."

"We're supposed to talk to meat."

"That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there. Anybody home.' That sort of thing."

"They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?"
"Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat."

"I thought you just told me they used radio."

"They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat."

"Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?"

"Officially or unofficially?"

"Both."

"Officially, we are required to contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing."

"I was hoping you would say that."

"It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?"

"I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say? 'Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?"

"Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they can only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact."

"So we just pretend there's no one home in the Universe."

"That's it."

"Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you probed? You're sure they won't remember?"

"They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them."

"A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream."

"And we marked the entire sector unoccupied."

"Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?"

"Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again."

"They always come around."
 
2012-11-02 06:03:35 PM

Millennium: An infinite series can have a finite sum: consider Zeno's old favorite (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32...) as an example.


But the statement which started this whole tangent supposed an infinite number of trials for a specific experiment, which would obviously result in every possible outcome occurring an infinite number of times.

hairywoogit: I think you are referring to the Newtonian idea that absolute time and space are independent. The issue with what you are saying is that your corporeal experience of time does not create time, it exists in a larger universe and is therefor a very imprecise metaphor. Time exists within our bubble as matter and energy exist, and is dependent on relative motion and mass. Lacking relative motion and mass (outside the bubble, if you will), there is no time. Again, with the disclaimer that there may be a lot more research or information that I am missing.


There is undoubtedly a tremendous amount of research and information that I'm missing; every point I'm arguing on this subject was "discovered" independently through my own insomniac musings. What I'm trying to say is that if you go outside whatever the whole of existence is, then "time" as we know it does not exist & never existed in the first place...but that presumes that there is an "outside" to go to.

The relatively simple concept of there being a beginning or end to everything is one that I cannot wrap my brain around; this requires everything to have sprung out of nothing, literally, and defies both logic and every law of physics of which I'm aware (again, not nearly all of them). The far more complex concept of an infinite universe is much easier to comprehend, even if not in terms of the details of this infinity. Then again, even if you assume a finite universe that does not necessarily preclude an infinite timeline within it; if you go with a vastly oversimplified equation of X+Y=Z, where X is the total amount of "stuff" in the universe and Y is the total amount of potential "stuff", then you can have a finite Z while still having an infinite number of distributions between X and Y, with each possible distribution occurring an infinite number of times. This would also (again, from an amateur logic-based argument, quite possibly not from an educated mathematical one) actually make it not only possible but certain that "everything" (X) sprang from "nothing" (Y), and that this will occur an infinite number of times.

If you (or anyone else who is more well-read than I on the subject) can point me toward some (free) reading to better educate myself on all of this, I'd greatly appreciate it. And by the way, I'm only scratching the surface of the crazy theories which have rolled through my brain so far. :)
 
2012-11-02 06:04:02 PM
 
2012-11-02 06:14:41 PM

Harv72b: .but that presumes that there is an "outside" to go to.


The 'multiverses' theory I mentioned earlier takes this into account. Infinite "bubbles" of universes. And there is no saying that our universal truths about gravity, mass, etc., are at all the same in the bubble next door.
 
2012-11-02 06:17:29 PM

Anenu: or they are simply ignoring us as we aren't really that interesting and have nothing to offer them.


Consider, that to any life form intelligent enough to communicate with us, we are the Jersey Shore of the universe. They might watch us for a few minutes and have a good laugh, but they certainly don't want to hang out with us. :-\
 
Displayed 50 of 298 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report