- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Jun 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe 1953 War of the Worlds movie is far superior, IMO.
i watched the war of the worlds yesterday, it was scary!
But I was not alive for this:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1930s/a/warofworlds.htm
or search on "war" at
http://www.mercurytheatre.info/
And play the mp3.
15 Jun 11
Originally posted by JS357Less effects but more drama somehow. The latest one had Cruise as a woos, didn't know ash from teakettle.
The 1953 War of the Worlds movie is far superior, IMO.
But I was not alive for this:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1930s/a/warofworlds.htm
or search on "war" at
http://www.mercurytheatre.info/
And play the mp3.
15 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouseits not true. it is enough for the strong force to be less strong and no atoms get formed. or if gravity would have been stronger, the universe might have begun contracting 1 year after being started and collapsed again. there is no "other stuff compensating". they are called fundamental forces for a reason.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html
He makes a strong case against the fine tuning of the universe, where he notes people change one parameter like gravity saying a few percent one way or the other and we don't exist, but if one parameter changes, likely is it for other parameters to change with it, compensating.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Jun 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziOf course if we can speculate like this there is the naturalist reply: Assuming the universe formed by some sort of unguided event (which your statement posits) and as you say, gravity was strong enough for it to collapse before life developed, what would keep it from forming again, maybe this time with gravity being a little weaker? Maybe this could repeat and eventually there would be a universe with parameters such that the precursor molecules to life, or life itself, could develop in. Then, no big surprise, we find ourselves there.
its not true. it is enough for the strong force to be less strong and no atoms get formed. or if gravity would have been stronger, the universe might have begun contracting 1 year after being started and collapsed again. there is no "other stuff compensating". they are called fundamental forces for a reason.
15 Jun 11
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne======================================
While that may sell books, the "universe fine tuned for life" argument only appeals to the self-centered. Therein lies the biggest fallacy. If some of the parameters were sufficiently different, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist and human beings wouldn't exist. So what? There may still be a universe and life, just not as we know it. If they didn't realize the fallacy. Of course, they are what they are. They cannot see beyond themselves.
While that may sell books, the "universe fine tuned for life" argument only appeals to the self-centered.
======================================
Baloney,
Say the center of the universe is humankind.
Say the center of humankind is one Jesus Christ.
His center was not SELF but His Father, the Father's will, to the point of even death on the cross for redemption, a totally self sacrificial love.
Man as the center does not have to mean man is self centered.
16 Jun 11
Originally posted by jaywillNot sure what your response has to do with my post. It's as if you read the first line and responded without taking its entirety into account.
[b]======================================
While that may sell books, the "universe fine tuned for life" argument only appeals to the self-centered.
======================================
Baloney,
Say the center of the universe is humankind.
Say the center of humankind is one Jesus Christ.
His center was not SELF but His F ...[text shortened]... /b] self sacrificial love.
Man as the center does not have to mean man is self centered.[/b]
How is it related to the following?:
If some of the parameters were sufficiently different, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist and human beings wouldn't exist. So what? There may still be a universe and life, just not as we know it. If they didn't hold the self-centered belief that the universe exists for themselves, they'd realize the fallacy.
16 Jun 11
Originally posted by JS357sure, i don't dispute this fact.
Of course if we can speculate like this there is the naturalist reply: Assuming the universe formed by some sort of unguided event (which your statement posits) and as you say, gravity was strong enough for it to collapse before life developed, what would keep it from forming again, maybe this time with gravity being a little weaker? Maybe this could repeat an ...[text shortened]... cules to life, or life itself, could develop in. Then, no big surprise, we find ourselves there.
we as humans marvel at how fine tuned the universe is that it allowed for our evolution. meanwhile perhaps, in another universe, sentient beings made of energy marvel the same thing. or in another universe some creatures shudder to think that if their strong force would be only sligthly less strong, the super heavy atoms of which they are made of would be unstable and not form.
i was arguing against his point that if one force is changed, another would step in the compensate (for what?)
16 Jun 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi'For what' would be to make a universe that the new constraints allowed life. If the multiverse concept is anything like true, there would be lots of universes with no chance for life, maybe one big gas ball or something.
sure, i don't dispute this fact.
we as humans marvel at how fine tuned the universe is that it allowed for our evolution. meanwhile perhaps, in another universe, sentient beings made of energy marvel the same thing. or in another universe some creatures shudder to think that if their strong force would be only sligthly less strong, the super heavy ato ...[text shortened]... gainst his point that if one force is changed, another would step in the compensate (for what?)
Don't forget, even here on Earth, there are places with no life.
16 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouseand the interstellar space is void. what is your point? a fine tuned universe which allows life doesn't need to have organic material in every cubic centimeter.
'For what' would be to make a universe that the new constraints allowed life. If the multiverse concept is anything like true, there would be lots of universes with no chance for life, maybe one big gas ball or something.
Don't forget, even here on Earth, there are places with no life.
and about your "there are places on earth with no life". care to explain that? where are those places? below the mohorovicic discontinuity? at 800 km altitude? where? there are bacterias in antartica or at 8000m depth in the ocean.
16 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziBut not more than a couple miles underground since even extremephobes can't survive in 200 degree F temperatures.
and the interstellar space is void. what is your point? a fine tuned universe which allows life doesn't need to have organic material in every cubic centimeter.
and about your "there are places on earth with no life". care to explain that? where are those places? below the mohorovicic discontinuity? at 800 km altitude? where? there are bacterias in antartica or at 8000m depth in the ocean.
I suspect the rule in our universe is, anyplace that life could form will, forced to form by the laws of our universe.
The question for me is how related life will prove to be, assuming our space program survives for the next 100 years when by that time one should be safe in assuming some form of life will be found on moons or other planets of the solar system.
If life was seeded to this planet by prebiotic material deposited by meteorites, then it seems safe to argue other planets around nearby suns would have the same prebiotics and may end up with life similar to Earthy kind.
I would love to see what would pass for our kind of DNA, would other forms work as well? A triple helix maybe, something along those lines. If so, would life forms on another planet we visited be totally inimical to our life, that is to say, their 'viruses' attack ours unremittingly or would we be unable to be attacked by those life forms because of mutual incompatibility.
My guess is life forms from the other side of the galaxy would have their own analogues due to the kind of interstellar cloud forming dozens of similar stars but with different prebiotic molecules which nonetheless enable life to form.
That whole volume of space may have similar life forms and our whole volume of space including the stars that formed from the same cloud as formed our sun could have life forms similar to our.
There was an article in Scientific American about where the stars are now that formed from the same cloud as our sun and they seem to have been swept into a line about 3000 light years long strewn across our local arm of the milky way.
If I was able to direct the search for extraterrestrial life, I would aim at those stars.
If I was put in charge of the first interstellar human or otherwise probe to the nearest stars I would for sure start with Alpha Centauri, since for one thing you get more pound for the buck, since it is a triple system and at least one of the stars in that triple is very close to ours.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194404
17 Jun 11
Originally posted by galveston75Because among the planets we know, there's a huge range of parameters. For life as we know it, we need a temperature range to allow for lots of liquid water. There are billions and billions of planets which qualify, but only one, maybe two, in our solar system.
Then why don't all planets have life on them?