OT Life in the Universe

pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main

Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:45:25
From: brewmaster
Subject: OT Life in the Universe

"What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as
we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems
could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy
not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why
hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonised. I discount suggestions
that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens,
would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."

http://tinyurl.com/tfmj3

Once again, I ask you WC and PP, did your god create the whole universe,
and all within it, including life (if any) other places, or is "he" only
concerned with earth? If so, why is "he" concerned with such a small
speck of dust that has been around for such a short period of time, and
will be long gone before the universe collapses back on itself?

________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 23:20:24
From: Howard Treesong
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

beerboy wrote:

> Have you seen The Elegant Universe by PBS? They go in to some modern thinking on
> String Theory and how it relates to the Big Bang, providing a plausible
> explination as to what the Big Bang really was, and why it occured.
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

I have not. My basis for this is a years-old recall of one of my
all-time favorite books, Timothy Ferris's Coming of Age in the Milky
Way. It is an absolutely outstanding book.

I may have to buy that PBS series, though. It's now been recommended to
me by several people.

-Howard Treesong

Date: 06 Dec 2006 07:44:31
From: beerboy
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

In news:1165389623.927024.68160@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com,
Howard Treesong <ricklee90@hotmail.com > typed:

Date: 05 Dec 2006 23:17:53
From: Howard Treesong
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

William Coleman wrote:

> Do we know that is what will happen? I am still waiting for someone to
> explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable measure of speed or
> distance.

Half of that question doesn't make any sense. Red shift standing alone
can't be a measure of distance. As I recall it, the theory is that an
assumed constant relationship between the brightness of a certain class
of variable star and its periodicity permits us to baseline distances,
and our estimates of the size of the universe are based on this
assumption.

-Howard Treesong

Date: 06 Dec 2006 07:35:41
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Howard Treesong" <ricklee90@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165389473.272653.34540@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
: William Coleman wrote:
:
: > Do we know that is what will happen? I am still waiting for someone to
: > explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable measure of speed
or
: > distance.
:
: Half of that question doesn't make any sense. Red shift standing alone
: can't be a measure of distance. As I recall it, the theory is that an
: assumed constant relationship between the brightness of a certain class
: of variable star and its periodicity permits us to baseline distances,
: and our estimates of the size of the universe are based on this
: assumption.

By the way, I suggest you read "Quasars, Red Shifts, and Controversies" by
Halton Arp before you embarrass yourself further with your superficial
knowledge of cosmology. The actual science and its interpretation are much
less tidy than you seem to think.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 15:54:13
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:35:41 GMT, "William Coleman"
<ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote:

<snipped >

>By the way, I suggest you read "Quasars, Red Shifts, and Controversies" by
>Halton Arp before you embarrass yourself further with your superficial
>knowledge of cosmology. The actual science and its interpretation are much
>less tidy than you seem to think.

I have read this book, and many others on the topic. The topics are
highly controversial and to quote his work as scientific fact would be
a mistake. This book is also fairly old--I think I read the book
about 11, or 12 years ago. Time, however, has not stood still and
recent discoveries and theories should not be simply dismissed, in
order to placate Arp.

FWIW, I am skeptical of using the redshift as an indicator of such
enormous distances. I am also not soild on the belief that quasars
are at the "ends" of the universe. In the future, however, there will
be instruments built which will enable us to observer things such as
Cepheid variabale in galaxies which are at extreme distances from our
galaxy and this will help to shed more light on the ability to use
redshift as distance indicators. I suggest reading "Principles of
Physical Cosmology," from Peebles--if you feel that your math and
physics are up to the task.

>William Coleman (ramashiva)

David

Date: 06 Dec 2006 07:27:42
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

Date: 05 Dec 2006 23:03:13
From: Howard Treesong
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

William Coleman wrote:

>What we observe is that faraway galaxies have a greater red shift than
>nearby galaxies, indicating a greater recessional velocity. That is the
>foundation for the currently accepted paradigm that the universe is
>expanding. What if something happens to light which travels billions of
>light years which causes a red shift? Do we know that is not the case?

Do you posit some random mystical change in light over long time
periods? If such a change exists, we have no basis of which I'm aware
to suggest it. There's no suggestion of any similar change in light
emanating from within the Milky Way. I don't think there's any
significant debate about expansion; but expansion leads backwards to
the Big Bang. And as every schoolchild should know, the great Fred
Hoyle went to his grave about five years ago denying the Big Bang (a
phrase I believe he coined). His competing hypothesis posited the
creation of matter to keep the universe in a steady state despite
expansion. That seems weird, but so too does the sudden creation of
everything from a single miniscule point.

I don't think we can conclusively prove the negative question you pose,
but a random "what if" doesn't plausibly suggest any reasonable
alternative. A giant hollow sphere of mythical martians placed just
outside the Milky Way could be manipulating redshifts to fool us, and I
can't imagine how we'd disprove that.

-Howard Treesong

Date: 06 Dec 2006 07:13:32
From: beerboy
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

In news:1165388593.011475.280730@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com,
Howard Treesong <ricklee90@hotmail.com > typed:

Date: 06 Dec 2006 07:24:46
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Howard Treesong" <ricklee90@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165388593.011475.280730@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
: William Coleman wrote:
:
: >What we observe is that faraway galaxies have a greater red shift than
: >nearby galaxies, indicating a greater recessional velocity. That is the
: >foundation for the currently accepted paradigm that the universe is
: >expanding. What if something happens to light which travels billions of
: >light years which causes a red shift? Do we know that is not the case?
:
: Do you posit some random mystical change in light over long time
: periods?

Yeah, it's just a random mystical idea. No respectable scientist would give
it any credence --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

Tired light is a hypothetical redshift mechanism proposed as an alternative
explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. Tired light was first
proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky [1] who suggested that photons might slowly
lose energy as they travel vast distances through a static universe by
interaction with matter or other photons, or by some novel physical
mechanism. Since a decrease in energy corresponds to an increase in light's
wavelength, this effect would produce a redshift in spectral lines that
increase proportionally with the distance of the source. The term "tired
light" was coined by Richard Tolman in the early 1930s [2].

Tired light mechanisms were one of the proposed alternatives to the Big Bang
and the Steady State cosmologies that both proposed Hubble's law was
associated with a metric expansion of space. Through the middle of the
twentieth century, most cosmologists supported one of these two paradigms,
but there were a few scientists who worked with the tired light alternative.
As the discipline of observational cosmology developed in the late twentieth
century and the associated data became more numerous and accurate, the Big
Bang emerged as the predominant cosmological theory and is accepted in the
current parametrization of the state and evolution of the universe. There
are a few modern proponents of nonstandard cosmologies who rely on tired
light mechanisms, e.g. Crawford (1993), though the vast majority of
physicists and astronomers accept the conclusions of various studies [2] [3]
that such an effect either does not or cannot account for cosmological
redshifts.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:29:32
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:24:46 GMT, "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net >
wrote:

>"Howard Treesong" <ricklee90@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1165388593.011475.280730@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>: William Coleman wrote:

>: >What we observe is that faraway galaxies have a greater red shift than
>: >nearby galaxies, indicating a greater recessional velocity. That is the
>: >foundation for the currently accepted paradigm that the universe is
>: >expanding. What if something happens to light which travels billions of
>: >light years which causes a red shift? Do we know that is not the case?

>: Do you posit some random mystical change in light over long time
>: periods?

>Yeah, it's just a random mystical idea. No respectable scientist would give
>it any credence --

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

>Tired light is a hypothetical redshift mechanism proposed as an alternative
>explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. Tired light was first
>proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky [1] who suggested that photons might slowly
>lose energy as they travel vast distances through a static universe by
>interaction with matter or other photons, or by some novel physical
>mechanism.

"Novel" is often a term of art in science as it is in law. By itself, it is
very close to a polite way of saying "bullshit you just made up."

Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:42:06
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message
news:pbhdn25vernflmbtfso7rdi2ct5mguholh@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:24:46 GMT, "William Coleman"
<ramashiva@earthlink.net >
: wrote:
:
: >"Howard Treesong" <ricklee90@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: >news:1165388593.011475.280730@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
: >: William Coleman wrote:
:
: >: >What we observe is that faraway galaxies have a greater red shift than
: >: >nearby galaxies, indicating a greater recessional velocity. That is
the
: >: >foundation for the currently accepted paradigm that the universe is
: >: >expanding. What if something happens to light which travels billions
of
: >: >light years which causes a red shift? Do we know that is not the
case?
:
: >: Do you posit some random mystical change in light over long time
: >: periods?
:
: >Yeah, it's just a random mystical idea. No respectable scientist would
give
: >it any credence --
:
: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
:
: >Tired light is a hypothetical redshift mechanism proposed as an
alternative
: >explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. Tired light was first
: >proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky [1] who suggested that photons might
slowly
: >lose energy as they travel vast distances through a static universe by
: >interaction with matter or other photons, or by some novel physical
: >mechanism.
:
: "Novel" is often a term of art in science as it is in law. By itself, it
is
: very close to a polite way of saying "bullshit you just made up."

In this context, "novel" just means "new". If you read the entire Wikipedia
article, you know that, as recently as 1993, articles were still being
published in refereed journals based on Tired Light. The articles cited as
convincing proof that the red shift of distant galaxies cannot be explained
by Tired Light were published in 2001. In other words, it is not just a
frivolous notion, but a serious alternative hypothesis which has been
debated for over 70 years.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 22:23:01
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Howard Treesong" <ricklee90@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165388593.011475.280730@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> William Coleman wrote:
>
>>What we observe is that faraway galaxies have a greater red shift than
>>nearby galaxies, indicating a greater recessional velocity. That is the
>>foundation for the currently accepted paradigm that the universe is
>>expanding. What if something happens to light which travels billions of
>>light years which causes a red shift? Do we know that is not the case?
>
> Do you posit some random mystical change in light over long time
> periods? If such a change exists, we have no basis of which I'm aware
> to suggest it. There's no suggestion of any similar change in light
> emanating from within the Milky Way. I don't think there's any
> significant debate about expansion; but expansion leads backwards to
> the Big Bang. And as every schoolchild should know, the great Fred
> Hoyle went to his grave about five years ago denying the Big Bang (a
> phrase I believe he coined). His competing hypothesis posited the
> creation of matter to keep the universe in a steady state despite
> expansion. That seems weird, but so too does the sudden creation of
> everything from a single miniscule point.
>
> I don't think we can conclusively prove the negative question you pose,
> but a random "what if" doesn't plausibly suggest any reasonable
> alternative. A giant hollow sphere of mythical martians placed just
> outside the Milky Way could be manipulating redshifts to fool us, and I
> can't imagine how we'd disprove that.
>
> -Howard Treesong

I think Willie was pointing out that Hawking appears to have made a strong
statement without taking into account other possibilities.

On another subject, I saw a special on The Discovery Channel (I think, it
could have been another) about Supermassive Black Holes which, as it turns
out, are apparently at the center of all galaxies, including our own. I
didn't really understand it all but it was fascinating.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:23:16
From: JohnnyYooper
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

FellKnight wrote:
>
> Outside our Solar System? No, none. I think I may have seen a picture
> which showed a shadow being cast on a star by a large planet, but that
> might have been our sun too, I am not sure.
>
> Fell

i dont think even the most powerful telescopes can see any star
(besides the sun) as being more than a point of light. they can't see
any discernable disk shape at all, just a variance in brightness. even
the closest star is 4 light yrs away. thats a looooooong way,
considering the sun is only 8 light minutes away.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 15:28:33
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On 5 Dec 2006 21:23:16 -0800, "JohnnyYooper" <JohnnyYooper@gmail.com >
wrote:

>
>FellKnight wrote:
>>
>> Outside our Solar System? No, none. I think I may have seen a picture
>> which showed a shadow being cast on a star by a large planet, but that
>> might have been our sun too, I am not sure.
>>
>> Fell
>
> i dont think even the most powerful telescopes can see any star
>(besides the sun) as being more than a point of light. they can't see
>any discernable disk shape at all, just a variance in brightness. even
>the closest star is 4 light yrs away. thats a looooooong way,
>considering the sun is only 8 light minutes away.

This is also not the case. Using interferometry, astronomers imaged
solar spots on Betelgeuse decades ago. This was possible because
Betelgeuse is relatively close to us and HUGE. If we were to replace
our sun with Betelgeuse, the orbits of all the inner planets would be
swallowed up.

David

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:19:14
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

JohnnyYooper wrote:
>
> that was an entertaining article/lecture. specially the part about
> future life may be the machines we send to other stars in place of
> ourselves. i dont see what good that does really. a machine cant have a
> soul. i'm not really religious but i can see how a machine wouldnt have
> a soul. could you be friends with a machine? could you go have a beer
> and a laugh with a machine? it would be meaningless.

That depends. Is the machine picking up the tab?

> btw, the end of the article said SETI has been shut down due to lack of
> funding. its still going.
>
> http://www.seti.org/site/pp.aspx?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179290

Technically, the SETI project was in fact cancelled due to termination
of funding. But it has been replaced by privately-funded projects
(like "Phoenix") that are still using the SETI name (at least for
internet purposes, and possibly other.)

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:14:48
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vtnh44xecu.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >
> > Hubble cannot detect life on other planets. It can barely even tell that
> > there is a planet there (and only does so by observing gravitational
> > fluctuations in the solar system rather than actual optical observation).
> >
>
> Then are there NONE that we can actually see physically? Recently? Zero?

The distances involved place extrasolar planetary systems outside the
ability of existing optical telescopes to resolve.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 05:28:27
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165382088.803876.322970@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Paul Popinjay wrote:
>>
>> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:vtnh44xecu.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> >
>> > Hubble cannot detect life on other planets. It can barely even tell
>> > that
>> > there is a planet there (and only does so by observing gravitational
>> > fluctuations in the solar system rather than actual optical
>> > observation).
>> >
>>
>> Then are there NONE that we can actually see physically? Recently?
>> Zero?
>
> The distances involved place extrasolar planetary systems outside the
> ability of existing optical telescopes to resolve.
>

Ok then. In my casual listening to the news, I guess I assumed they
actually saw one or two when announcing these stories in the last couple
years. Obviously I only read about communism and stuff. btw, congrats to
Hugo Chavez.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 01:21:59
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 05:28:27 GMT, "Paul Popinjay"
<paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote:

>"WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1165382088.803876.322970@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> Paul Popinjay wrote:

>> The distances involved place extrasolar planetary systems outside the
>> ability of existing optical telescopes to resolve.

>Ok then. In my casual listening to the news, I guess I assumed they
>actually saw one or two when announcing these stories in the last couple
>years. Obviously I only read about communism and stuff. btw, congrats to
>Hugo Chavez.

That's why the aliens haven't contacted us yet. As soon as we achieve
civilization, and live together in peace and Communism, with Chavez as
the President of the World, then the aliens will get in touch with us.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 06:17:50
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:%xsdh.64907$si3.58754@tornado.socal.rr.com...
:
: "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message
: news:1165382088.803876.322970@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
: > Paul Popinjay wrote:
: >>
: >> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: >> news:vtnh44xecu.ln2@recgroups.com...
: >> >
: >> > Hubble cannot detect life on other planets. It can barely even tell
: >> > that
: >> > there is a planet there (and only does so by observing gravitational
: >> > fluctuations in the solar system rather than actual optical
: >> > observation).
: >> >
: >>
: >> Then are there NONE that we can actually see physically? Recently?
: >> Zero?
: >
: > The distances involved place extrasolar planetary systems outside the
: > ability of existing optical telescopes to resolve.
: >
:
: Ok then. In my casual listening to the news, I guess I assumed they
: actually saw one or two when announcing these stories in the last couple
: years. Obviously I only read about communism and stuff. btw, congrats
to
: Hugo Chavez.

Why Paul, how gracious of you! I will be sure to convey your
congratulations to Comrade Chavez at the next meeting of the International
Communist Conspiracy.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 06:47:54
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:igtdh.6948
>
> Why Paul, how gracious of you! I will be sure to convey your
> congratulations to Comrade Chavez at the next meeting of the International
> Communist Conspiracy.
>
>

Tell him that Paul Popinjay agrees that Bush es un cabeza de verga..

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:12:32
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

brewmaster wrote:
>
> On Dec 5 2006 7:35 PM, William Coleman wrote:
>
> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > :
> > : Hubble cannot detect life on other planets. It can barely even tell that
> > : there is a planet there (and only does so by observing gravitational
> > : fluctuations in the solar system rather than actual optical observation).
> >
> >
> > I think brewmaster was trolling here. Even he isn't that dumb.
>
> <shrug> take it for what you will. I read this very recently. I'll try to
> find a link.

LOL! The joke's on Willy. You actually *are* that dumb.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:46:40
From: JohnnyYooper
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

brewmaster wrote:
> "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as
> we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
> appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
> stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems
> could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy
> not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why
> hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonised. I discount suggestions
> that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens,
> would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/tfmj3
>
> Once again, I ask you WC and PP, did your god create the whole universe,
> and all within it, including life (if any) other places, or is "he" only
> concerned with earth? If so, why is "he" concerned with such a small
> speck of dust that has been around for such a short period of time, and
> will be long gone before the universe collapses back on itself?

that was an entertaining article/lecture. specially the part about
future life may be the machines we send to other stars in place of
ourselves. i dont see what good that does really. a machine cant have a
soul. i'm not really religious but i can see how a machine wouldnt have
a soul. could you be friends with a machine? could you go have a beer
and a laugh with a machine? it would be meaningless.

btw, the end of the article said SETI has been shut down due to lack of
funding. its still going.

http://www.seti.org/site/pp.aspx?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179290

Date: 05 Dec 2006 17:40:36
From: WuzYoungOnceToo2
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 5, 7:34 pm, "beerboy" <please...@email.com > wrote:
>
> Nova has a really interesting documentry called "The Elegant Universe" inwhich
> it goes on to describe in a rather, for lack of a better word, elegant, and
> maybe eloquant way using String Theory and modern Quantum Mechanics. It is three
> hour program, viewable online in 5-8 min segments athttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

That was a simplified overview of the subject matter in Greene's book
by the same name (which is why he starred in it), and it barely
scratched the surface of the relevant concept and, IMHO, relied to much
on cute graphics and semi-witticisms by the author. Try the book
instead.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:55:19
From: Grunty
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

William Coleman wrote:

> "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message
> news:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> : "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as
> : we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
> : appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
> : stars, whose planets have life on them.
>
> And why is that? Hawking's argument here is really weak --
>
> "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance
> of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
>
> This is logical nonsense. It suggests no such thing. This would be like
> observing one hand of Texas Holdem, where a player was dealt a Royal Flush,
> and concluding that there is a good chance of being dealt a Royal Flush.

Wait. There *is* a good chance of *someone*somewhere*sometime* in the
near past or future or even right now, being dealt another Royal Flush,
if you look over enough thousands of hands.
Isn't this elementary probabilistics, or am I missing something in your
analogy?

Date: 06 Dec 2006 01:15:04
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Grunty" <gruntingdwarf@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165366519.117458.209000@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
: William Coleman wrote:
:
: > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message
: > news:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...
: >
: > : "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life,
as
: > : we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
: > : appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
: > : stars, whose planets have life on them.
: >
: > And why is that? Hawking's argument here is really weak --
: >
: > "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good
chance
: > of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
: >
: > This is logical nonsense. It suggests no such thing. This would be
like
: > observing one hand of Texas Holdem, where a player was dealt a Royal
Flush,
: > and concluding that there is a good chance of being dealt a Royal Flush.
:
: Wait. There *is* a good chance of *someone*somewhere*sometime* in the
: near past or future or even right now, being dealt another Royal Flush,
: if you look over enough thousands of hands.

But that isn't what Professor Hawking is arguing. He is arguing that, from
the one instance of life developing on Earth, we can conclude that there is
a good chance that life will develop wherever conditions are suitable. From
one data point, there is simply no way of determining whether an observed
event is a statistical freak or a commonplace occurrence.

What Hawking is talking about here is a key factor in the Drake Equation --
the probability that life will develop on planets where conditions are
suitable. To estimate that, we would have to know what constitutes suitable
conditions. Let's assume we know that. Then we would have to observe at
least a few planets with those conditions in order to even make an estimate
of the desired probability.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 01:18:38
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:15:04 GMT, "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net >
wrote:

>What Hawking is talking about here is a key factor in the Drake Equation --
>the probability that life will develop on planets where conditions are
>suitable. To estimate that, we would have to know what constitutes suitable
>conditions. Let's assume we know that. Then we would have to observe at
>least a few planets with those conditions in order to even make an estimate
>of the desired probability.

That's what makes it a rather useless statement by Hawking. It essentially
states the tautology that life is likely to develop on planets where life is
likely to develop. The meaning of "suitable" in Hawking's statement can't
mean much other than "where life is likely to develop." If it weren't likely,
then clearly it would be "unsuitable."

Date: 05 Dec 2006 17:34:06
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 5 2006 5:15 PM, William Coleman wrote:

> "Grunty" <gruntingdwarf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1165366519.117458.209000@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> : William Coleman wrote:
> :
> : > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message
> : > news:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...
> : >
> : > : "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life,
> as
> : > : we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
> : > : appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
> : > : stars, whose planets have life on them.
> : >
> : > And why is that? Hawking's argument here is really weak --
> : >
> : > "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good
> chance
> : > of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
> : >
> : > This is logical nonsense. It suggests no such thing. This would be
> like
> : > observing one hand of Texas Holdem, where a player was dealt a Royal
> Flush,
> : > and concluding that there is a good chance of being dealt a Royal Flush.
> :
> : Wait. There *is* a good chance of *someone*somewhere*sometime* in the
> : near past or future or even right now, being dealt another Royal Flush,
> : if you look over enough thousands of hands.
>
> But that isn't what Professor Hawking is arguing. He is arguing that, from
> the one instance of life developing on Earth, we can conclude that there is
> a good chance that life will develop wherever conditions are suitable. From
> one data point, there is simply no way of determining whether an observed
> event is a statistical freak or a commonplace occurrence.
>
> What Hawking is talking about here is a key factor in the Drake Equation --
> the probability that life will develop on planets where conditions are
> suitable. To estimate that, we would have to know what constitutes suitable
> conditions. Let's assume we know that. Then we would have to observe at
> least a few planets with those conditions in order to even make an estimate
> of the desired probability.
>

Yes, this is true, which is why they are planning to use the Hubble to
"stare" at planets that look like they might be hospitable to life to see
if movements on the planet surfaces seem to indicate that life exists
there. They are going to look at planets that seem to be very much like
our own, near stars very much like our own, at first.

_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:53:19
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 5 2006 6:34 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Dec 5 2006 5:15 PM, William Coleman wrote:
>
> > "Grunty" <gruntingdwarf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1165366519.117458.209000@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> > : William Coleman wrote:
> > :
> > : > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message
> > : > news:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > : >
> > : > : "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of
life,
> > as
> > : > : we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
> > : > : appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
> > : > : stars, whose planets have life on them.
> > : >
> > : > And why is that? Hawking's argument here is really weak --
> > : >
> > : > "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good
> > chance
> > : > of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
> > : >
> > : > This is logical nonsense. It suggests no such thing. This would be
> > like
> > : > observing one hand of Texas Holdem, where a player was dealt a Royal
> > Flush,
> > : > and concluding that there is a good chance of being dealt a Royal
Flush.
> > :
> > : Wait. There *is* a good chance of *someone*somewhere*sometime* in the
> > : near past or future or even right now, being dealt another Royal Flush,
> > : if you look over enough thousands of hands.
> >
> > But that isn't what Professor Hawking is arguing. He is arguing that,
from
> > the one instance of life developing on Earth, we can conclude that there
is
> > a good chance that life will develop wherever conditions are suitable.
From
> > one data point, there is simply no way of determining whether an observed
> > event is a statistical freak or a commonplace occurrence.
> >
> > What Hawking is talking about here is a key factor in the Drake Equation
--
> > the probability that life will develop on planets where conditions are
> > suitable. To estimate that, we would have to know what constitutes
suitable
> > conditions. Let's assume we know that. Then we would have to observe at
> > least a few planets with those conditions in order to even make an
estimate
> > of the desired probability.
> >
>
> Yes, this is true, which is why they are planning to use the Hubble to
> "stare" at planets that look like they might be hospitable to life to see
> if movements on the planet surfaces seem to indicate that life exists
> there. They are going to look at planets that seem to be very much like
> our own, near stars very much like our own, at first.

Hubble cannot detect life on other planets. It can barely even tell that
there is a planet there (and only does so by observing gravitational
fluctuations in the solar system rather than actual optical observation).

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 04:45:15
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:vtnh44xecu.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> Hubble cannot detect life on other planets. It can barely even tell that
> there is a planet there (and only does so by observing gravitational
> fluctuations in the solar system rather than actual optical observation).
>

Then are there NONE that we can actually see physically? Recently? Zero?

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:07:42
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 5 2006 9:45 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:

> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vtnh44xecu.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >
> > Hubble cannot detect life on other planets. It can barely even tell that
> > there is a planet there (and only does so by observing gravitational
> > fluctuations in the solar system rather than actual optical observation).
> >
>
> Then are there NONE that we can actually see physically? Recently? Zero?

Outside our Solar System? No, none. I think I may have seen a picture
which showed a shadow being cast on a star by a large planet, but that
might have been our sun too, I am not sure.

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 05:15:08
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:upvh44xdou.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 5 2006 9:45 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
>> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:vtnh44xecu.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> >
>> > Hubble cannot detect life on other planets. It can barely even tell
>> > that
>> > there is a planet there (and only does so by observing gravitational
>> > fluctuations in the solar system rather than actual optical
>> > observation).
>> >
>>
>> Then are there NONE that we can actually see physically? Recently?
>> Zero?
>
> Outside our Solar System? No, none. I think I may have seen a picture
> which showed a shadow being cast on a star by a large planet, but that
> might have been our sun too, I am not sure.
>

ok then, I'll take your word for it. Some reason I thought we could
actually see one or two recently.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 15:26:35
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:07:42 -0800, "FellKnight"
<jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Dec 5 2006 9:45 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
>> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:vtnh44xecu.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> >
>> > Hubble cannot detect life on other planets. It can barely even tell that
>> > there is a planet there (and only does so by observing gravitational
>> > fluctuations in the solar system rather than actual optical observation).
>> >
>>
>> Then are there NONE that we can actually see physically? Recently? Zero?
>
>Outside our Solar System? No, none. I think I may have seen a picture
>which showed a shadow being cast on a star by a large planet, but that
>might have been our sun too, I am not sure.

There have been some images of very large planets (borderline brown
dwarves) orbiting other stars taken. These are not planets which
would be able to sustain life as we know it.

>Fell

David

Date: 06 Dec 2006 03:35:17
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:vtnh44xecu.ln2@recgroups.com...
: On Dec 5 2006 6:34 PM, brewmaster wrote:
:
: > On Dec 5 2006 5:15 PM, William Coleman wrote:
: >
: > > "Grunty" <gruntingdwarf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > > news:1165366519.117458.209000@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
: > > : William Coleman wrote:
: > > :
: > > : > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message
: > > : > news:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...
: > > : >
: > > : > : "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of
: life,
: > > as
: > > : > : we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for
the
: > > : > : appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many
other
: > > : > : stars, whose planets have life on them.
: > > : >
: > > : > And why is that? Hawking's argument here is really weak --
: > > : >
: > > : > "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a
good
: > > chance
: > > : > of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
: > > : >
: > > : > This is logical nonsense. It suggests no such thing. This would
be
: > > like
: > > : > observing one hand of Texas Holdem, where a player was dealt a
Royal
: > > Flush,
: > > : > and concluding that there is a good chance of being dealt a Royal
: Flush.
: > > :
: > > : Wait. There *is* a good chance of *someone*somewhere*sometime* in
the
: > > : near past or future or even right now, being dealt another Royal
Flush,
: > > : if you look over enough thousands of hands.
: > >
: > > But that isn't what Professor Hawking is arguing. He is arguing that,
: from
: > > the one instance of life developing on Earth, we can conclude that
there
: is
: > > a good chance that life will develop wherever conditions are suitable.
: From
: > > one data point, there is simply no way of determining whether an
observed
: > > event is a statistical freak or a commonplace occurrence.
: > >
: > > What Hawking is talking about here is a key factor in the Drake
Equation
: --
: > > the probability that life will develop on planets where conditions are
: > > suitable. To estimate that, we would have to know what constitutes
: suitable
: > > conditions. Let's assume we know that. Then we would have to observe
at
: > > least a few planets with those conditions in order to even make an
: estimate
: > > of the desired probability.
: > >
: >
: > Yes, this is true, which is why they are planning to use the Hubble to
: > "stare" at planets that look like they might be hospitable to life to
see
: > if movements on the planet surfaces seem to indicate that life exists
: > there. They are going to look at planets that seem to be very much like
: > our own, near stars very much like our own, at first.
:
: Hubble cannot detect life on other planets. It can barely even tell that
: there is a planet there (and only does so by observing gravitational
: fluctuations in the solar system rather than actual optical observation).

I think brewmaster was trolling here. Even he isn't that dumb.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 05 Dec 2006 20:01:33
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 5 2006 7:35 PM, William Coleman wrote:

> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vtnh44xecu.ln2@recgroups.com...
> : On Dec 5 2006 6:34 PM, brewmaster wrote:
> :
> : > On Dec 5 2006 5:15 PM, William Coleman wrote:
> : >
> : > > "Grunty" <gruntingdwarf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> : > > news:1165366519.117458.209000@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> : > > : William Coleman wrote:
> : > > :
> : > > : > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message
> : > > : > news:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...
> : > > : >
> : > > : > : "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of
> : life,
> : > > as
> : > > : > : we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for
> the
> : > > : > : appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many
> other
> : > > : > : stars, whose planets have life on them.
> : > > : >
> : > > : > And why is that? Hawking's argument here is really weak --
> : > > : >
> : > > : > "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a
> good
> : > > chance
> : > > : > of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
> : > > : >
> : > > : > This is logical nonsense. It suggests no such thing. This would
> be
> : > > like
> : > > : > observing one hand of Texas Holdem, where a player was dealt a
> Royal
> : > > Flush,
> : > > : > and concluding that there is a good chance of being dealt a Royal
> : Flush.
> : > > :
> : > > : Wait. There *is* a good chance of *someone*somewhere*sometime* in
> the
> : > > : near past or future or even right now, being dealt another Royal
> Flush,
> : > > : if you look over enough thousands of hands.
> : > >
> : > > But that isn't what Professor Hawking is arguing. He is arguing that,
> : from
> : > > the one instance of life developing on Earth, we can conclude that
> there
> : is
> : > > a good chance that life will develop wherever conditions are suitable.
> : From
> : > > one data point, there is simply no way of determining whether an
> observed
> : > > event is a statistical freak or a commonplace occurrence.
> : > >
> : > > What Hawking is talking about here is a key factor in the Drake
> Equation
> : --
> : > > the probability that life will develop on planets where conditions are
> : > > suitable. To estimate that, we would have to know what constitutes
> : suitable
> : > > conditions. Let's assume we know that. Then we would have to observe
> at
> : > > least a few planets with those conditions in order to even make an
> : estimate
> : > > of the desired probability.
> : > >
> : >
> : > Yes, this is true, which is why they are planning to use the Hubble to
> : > "stare" at planets that look like they might be hospitable to life to
> see
> : > if movements on the planet surfaces seem to indicate that life exists
> : > there. They are going to look at planets that seem to be very much like
> : > our own, near stars very much like our own, at first.
> :
> : Hubble cannot detect life on other planets. It can barely even tell that
> : there is a planet there (and only does so by observing gravitational
> : fluctuations in the solar system rather than actual optical observation).
>
>
> I think brewmaster was trolling here. Even he isn't that dumb.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

<shrug > take it for what you will. I read this very recently. I'll try to
find a link.

_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 06:19:59
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message
news:ttrh44xgiu.ln2@recgroups.com...
: On Dec 5 2006 7:35 PM, William Coleman wrote:
:
: > "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:vtnh44xecu.ln2@recgroups.com...
: > : On Dec 5 2006 6:34 PM, brewmaster wrote:
: > :
: > : > On Dec 5 2006 5:15 PM, William Coleman wrote:
: > : >
: > : > > "Grunty" <gruntingdwarf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > : > > news:1165366519.117458.209000@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
: > : > > : William Coleman wrote:
: > : > > :
: > : > > : > "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message
: > : > > : > news:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...
: > : > > : >
: > : > > : > : "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form
of
: > : life,
: > : > > as
: > : > > : > : we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale
for
: > the
: > : > > : > : appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be
many
: > other
: > : > > : > : stars, whose planets have life on them.
: > : > > : >
: > : > > : > And why is that? Hawking's argument here is really weak --
: > : > > : >
: > : > > : > "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a
: > good
: > : > > chance
: > : > > : > of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable
conditions."
: > : > > : >
: > : > > : > This is logical nonsense. It suggests no such thing. This
would
: > be
: > : > > like
: > : > > : > observing one hand of Texas Holdem, where a player was dealt a
: > Royal
: > : > > Flush,
: > : > > : > and concluding that there is a good chance of being dealt a
Royal
: > : Flush.
: > : > > :
: > : > > : Wait. There *is* a good chance of *someone*somewhere*sometime*
in
: > the
: > : > > : near past or future or even right now, being dealt another Royal
: > Flush,
: > : > > : if you look over enough thousands of hands.
: > : > >
: > : > > But that isn't what Professor Hawking is arguing. He is arguing
that,
: > : from
: > : > > the one instance of life developing on Earth, we can conclude that
: > there
: > : is
: > : > > a good chance that life will develop wherever conditions are
suitable.
: > : From
: > : > > one data point, there is simply no way of determining whether an
: > observed
: > : > > event is a statistical freak or a commonplace occurrence.
: > : > >
: > : > > What Hawking is talking about here is a key factor in the Drake
: > Equation
: > : --
: > : > > the probability that life will develop on planets where conditions
are
: > : > > suitable. To estimate that, we would have to know what
constitutes
: > : suitable
: > : > > conditions. Let's assume we know that. Then we would have to
observe
: > at
: > : > > least a few planets with those conditions in order to even make an
: > : estimate
: > : > > of the desired probability.
: > : > >
: > : >
: > : > Yes, this is true, which is why they are planning to use the Hubble
to
: > : > "stare" at planets that look like they might be hospitable to life
to
: > see
: > : > if movements on the planet surfaces seem to indicate that life
exists
: > : > there. They are going to look at planets that seem to be very much
like
: > : > our own, near stars very much like our own, at first.
: > :
: > : Hubble cannot detect life on other planets. It can barely even tell
that
: > : there is a planet there (and only does so by observing gravitational
: > : fluctuations in the solar system rather than actual optical
observation).
: >
: >
: > I think brewmaster was trolling here. Even he isn't that dumb.
: >
: >
: > William Coleman (ramashiva)
:
: <shrug > take it for what you will. I read this very recently. I'll try
to
: find a link.

OMFG! You WEREN'T trolling. Houston, we have a problem.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 15:17:22
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:34:06 -0800, "brewmaster"
<brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote:

<snipped >

>Yes, this is true, which is why they are planning to use the Hubble to
>"stare" at planets that look like they might be hospitable to life to see
>if movements on the planet surfaces seem to indicate that life exists
>there. They are going to look at planets that seem to be very much like
>our own, near stars very much like our own, at first.

This is not entirely correct. Preparations are being made to launch
new generation telescopes which will undergo these searches. The
Hubble Space Telescope is not equipped for such endeavours.

David

Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:21:02
From: WuzYoungOnceToo2
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

Now...you see what you assholes have done? You've forced me to agree
with Coleman.

I feel dirty. I think I'll go take a shower now.

On Dec 5, 5:47 pm, "William Coleman" <ramash...@earthlink.net > wrote:
> "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com> wrote in messagenews:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> : "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as
> : we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
> : appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
> : stars, whose planets have life on them.
>
> And why is that? Hawking's argument here is really weak --
>
> "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance
> of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
>
> This is logical nonsense. It suggests no such thing. This would be like
> observing one hand of Texas Holdem, where a player was dealt a Royal Flush,
> and concluding that there is a good chance of being dealt a Royal Flush.
>
> I am really starting to wonder why Professor Hawking is such a respected
> scientist, when he makes this type of elementary logical error.
>
> : Some of these stellar systems
> : could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy
> : not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why
> : hasn't the Earth been visited,
>
> Maybe it has.
>
> : and even colonised.
>
> Maybe it has.
>
> : I discount suggestions that UFO's contain beings from outer space.
>
> Maybe they do.
>
> : I think any visits by aliens,
> : would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."
>
> Let's see. It is unlikely that beings who have mastered interstellar travel
> could visit Earth without human beings being aware of it. How could such
> beings possibly be that clever? You know what? Professor Hawking is just
> as full of shit as you are.
>
> :http://tinyurl.com/tfmj3
>
> I don't see anything in this article to support your conclusion that there
> are no forms of life more advanced than human beings. In fact, he says, "I
> prefer a fourth possibility: there are other forms of intelligent life out
> there, but that we have been overlooked."
>
> On the other hand, you say, "Since no "aliens" have ever visited us, there
> must be no life in the universe significantly more advanced than us."
>
> : Once again, I ask you WC and PP, did your god create the whole universe,
> : and all within it, including life (if any) other places, or is "he" only
> : concerned with earth?
>
> I do not know.
>
> : If so, why is "he" concerned with such a small
> : speck of dust that has been around for such a short period of time,
>
> Professor Hawking says the universe is about 15 billion years old, while the
> Earth is about 4 billion years old. So how is 4 billion years "a short
> period of time?"
>
> : and will be long gone before the universe collapses back on itself?
>
> Do we know that is what will happen? I am still waiting for someone to
> explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable measure of speed or
> distance.
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 05 Dec 2006 23:47:28
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message
news:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...

: "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as
: we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
: appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
: stars, whose planets have life on them.

And why is that? Hawking's argument here is really weak --

"The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance
of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."

This is logical nonsense. It suggests no such thing. This would be like
observing one hand of Texas Holdem, where a player was dealt a Royal Flush,
and concluding that there is a good chance of being dealt a Royal Flush.

I am really starting to wonder why Professor Hawking is such a respected
scientist, when he makes this type of elementary logical error.

: Some of these stellar systems
: could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy
: not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why
: hasn't the Earth been visited,

Maybe it has.

: and even colonised.

Maybe it has.

: I discount suggestions that UFO's contain beings from outer space.

Maybe they do.

: I think any visits by aliens,
: would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."

Let's see. It is unlikely that beings who have mastered interstellar travel
could visit Earth without human beings being aware of it. How could such
beings possibly be that clever? You know what? Professor Hawking is just
as full of shit as you are.

: http://tinyurl.com/tfmj3

I don't see anything in this article to support your conclusion that there
are no forms of life more advanced than human beings. In fact, he says, "I
prefer a fourth possibility: there are other forms of intelligent life out
there, but that we have been overlooked."

On the other hand, you say, "Since no "aliens" have ever visited us, there
must be no life in the universe significantly more advanced than us."

: Once again, I ask you WC and PP, did your god create the whole universe,
: and all within it, including life (if any) other places, or is "he" only
: concerned with earth?

I do not know.

: If so, why is "he" concerned with such a small
: speck of dust that has been around for such a short period of time,

Professor Hawking says the universe is about 15 billion years old, while the
Earth is about 4 billion years old. So how is 4 billion years "a short
period of time?"

: and will be long gone before the universe collapses back on itself?

Do we know that is what will happen? I am still waiting for someone to
explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable measure of speed or
distance.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 01:16:19
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:47:28 GMT, "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net >
wrote:

>"brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message
>news:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
>: "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as
>: we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
>: appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
>: stars, whose planets have life on them.

>And why is that? Hawking's argument here is really weak --

>"The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance
>of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."

>This is logical nonsense. It suggests no such thing. This would be like
>observing one hand of Texas Holdem, where a player was dealt a Royal Flush,
>and concluding that there is a good chance of being dealt a Royal Flush.

If one observed a royal straight flush being dealt, it would be an inevitable
conclusion that such an event was within the realm of possibility. Being
within the realm of possibility, and given an infinite number of other such
events, it is not at all absurd to conclude that some measurable number
of the unseen, infinite hands in the universe might also be a royal straight
flush, even knowing nothing of the rules by which poker hands result.

Similarly, the fact that there is life on this planet is absolute proof that
life is actually possible. Given that it is possible, the probability of it not
occurring at all in an infinite number of trials is essentially zero. It may
be exceedingly rare, like the royal straight flush, but it is certainly a
possible occurrence.

Even assuming a creator, and there is no particular reason to do so,
it would seem perverse to create a vast universe, and then to put the
only life in it on the third planet of the solar system of a not particularly
distinguished G2 class yellow star.

Date: 06 Dec 23:36:38
From: jd00123
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

Comment embedded:

On Dec 6 2006 12:16 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:47:28 GMT, "William Coleman"
> wrote:
>
> >"brewmaster" wrote in message
> >news:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >
> >: "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as
> >: we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
> >: appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
> >: stars, whose planets have life on them.
>
> >And why is that? Hawking's argument here is really weak --
>
> >"The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance
> >of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
>
> >This is logical nonsense. It suggests no such thing. This would be like
> >observing one hand of Texas Holdem, where a player was dealt a Royal Flush,
> >and concluding that there is a good chance of being dealt a Royal Flush.
>
> If one observed a royal straight flush being dealt, it would be an inevitable
> conclusion that such an event was within the realm of possibility. Being
> within the realm of possibility, and given an infinite number of other such
> events, it is not at all absurd to conclude that some measurable number
> of the unseen, infinite hands in the universe might also be a royal straight
> flush, even knowing nothing of the rules by which poker hands result.

The hand is referred to by real poker players as a Royal Flush, not a "Royal
Straight Flush". Calling it anything else screams
"noob"! Just thought I would clarify that for you.

> Similarly, the fact that there is life on this planet is absolute proof that
> life is actually possible. Given that it is possible, the probability of it
> not
> occurring at all in an infinite number of trials is essentially zero. It may
> be exceedingly rare, like the royal straight flush, but it is certainly a
> possible occurrence.
>
> Even assuming a creator, and there is no particular reason to do so,
> it would seem perverse to create a vast universe, and then to put the
> only life in it on the third planet of the solar system of a not particularly
> distinguished G2 class yellow star.

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 22:07:29
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Wed, 06 Dec 06 23:36:38 GMT, jd00123 <43070303@recpoker.com > wrote:

>> If one observed a royal straight flush being dealt, it would be an inevitable
>> conclusion that such an event was within the realm of possibility. Being
>> within the realm of possibility, and given an infinite number of other such
>> events, it is not at all absurd to conclude that some measurable number
>> of the unseen, infinite hands in the universe might also be a royal straight
>> flush, even knowing nothing of the rules by which poker hands result.

>The hand is referred to by real poker players as a Royal Flush, not a "Royal
>Straight Flush". Calling it anything else screams
>"noob"! Just thought I would clarify that for you.

4.5/5 on the wanker scale. Now wipe off your keyboard please before it
dries and gets sticky.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 18:11:50
From: Peg Smith
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

jd00123 <43070303@recpoker.com > wrote:

>The hand is referred to by real poker players as a Royal Flush, not a "Royal
>Straight Flush". Calling it anything else screams
>"noob"!

Yes, and I've always thought the same when someone says, "Boat," or
"Full boat."

Peg

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:21:20
From: xyious
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6 2006 12:47 AM, William Coleman wrote:
> And why is that? Hawking's argument here is really weak --
>
> "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance
> of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
>
> This is logical nonsense. It suggests no such thing. This would be like
> observing one hand of Texas Holdem, where a player was dealt a Royal Flush,
> and concluding that there is a good chance of being dealt a Royal Flush.

he just said it took us about 4 billion years to evolve into (sometimes)
intelligent life.
he didn't say 'there's life on earth, so there must be elsewhere', he said
'with the conditions on earth being as they are, there would be
intelligent life by now, anyway, so there must be on other planets.'

> Do we know that is what will happen? I am still waiting for someone to
> explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable measure of speed or
> distance.

it's reasonably easy, it's the doppler effect really.
you can guess from the size of a star what kind of light it emits. now if
he moves towards you the wavelength of the light is shortened, and thus
shifted to red. how much obviously depends on the speed. (of course the
speed relative to you). now if the star was moving away the light would be
shifted blue.

>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

-Alexander Knopf
http://www.xyious.com/?links

________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 02:57:34
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

Date: 06 Dec 2006 04:49:28
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:ykqdh.6890
>
> Oh, I missed this gem. He said no such thing. You have the reading
> comprehension of a submoron, which is obviously what you are.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
>

I don't know if you've been paying attention to this, but I want you to know
that Xyious is Torx. Remember Torx from a couple months ago? Just wanted
to make sure you knew. btw, check out his site/signature link.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 02:49:45
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"xyious" <a52dfe8@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:02mh44xr9u.ln2@recgroups.com...
: On Dec 6 2006 12:47 AM, William Coleman wrote:
: > And why is that? Hawking's argument here is really weak --
: >
: > "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good
chance
: > of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
: >
: > This is logical nonsense. It suggests no such thing. This would be
like
: > observing one hand of Texas Holdem, where a player was dealt a Royal
Flush,
: > and concluding that there is a good chance of being dealt a Royal Flush.
:
: he just said it took us about 4 billion years to evolve into (sometimes)
: intelligent life.
: he didn't say 'there's life on earth, so there must be elsewhere', he said
: 'with the conditions on earth being as they are, there would be
: intelligent life by now, anyway, so there must be on other planets.'
:
: > Do we know that is what will happen? I am still waiting for someone to
: > explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable measure of speed
or
: > distance.
:
: it's reasonably easy, it's the doppler effect really.

Yes, I am aware that that is the argument.

: you can guess from the size of a star what kind of light it emits. now if
: he moves towards you the wavelength of the light is shortened, and thus
: shifted to red. how much obviously depends on the speed. (of course the
: speed relative to you). now if the star was moving away the light would be
: shifted blue.

This is too funny. You have been expressing doubt as to my IQ, and you have
got the Doppler Effect exactly backwards. Red light is lower frequency,
thus longer wavelength, than blue light.

Light from objects moving towards us will be shifted to the blue end of the
spectrum, while objects moving away will have a red shift.

I am not questioning the existence of the Doppler Effect. I am questioning
whether it is a reliable indicator of relative speed over a distance of
billions of light years.

What we observe is that faraway galaxies have a greater red shift than
nearby galaxies, indicating a greater recessional velocity. That is the
foundation for the currently accepted paradigm that the universe is
expanding. What if something happens to light which travels billions of
light years which causes a red shift? Do we know that is not the case?

That was my question, which went completely over your head.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 05:27:49
From: xyious
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6 2006 3:49 AM, William Coleman wrote:
> : you can guess from the size of a star what kind of light it emits. now if
> : he moves towards you the wavelength of the light is shortened, and thus
> : shifted to red. how much obviously depends on the speed. (of course the
> : speed relative to you). now if the star was moving away the light would be
> : shifted blue.
>
> This is too funny. You have been expressing doubt as to my IQ, and you have
> got the Doppler Effect exactly backwards. Red light is lower frequency,
> thus longer wavelength, than blue light.

eh, happens.

> What we observe is that faraway galaxies have a greater red shift than
> nearby galaxies, indicating a greater recessional velocity. That is the
> foundation for the currently accepted paradigm that the universe is
> expanding. What if something happens to light which travels billions of
> light years which causes a red shift? Do we know that is not the case?

wouldn't we notice a 'red shift' in light everywhere if there was any
explanation for it other than the expansion of the universe ? wouldn't we
be able to measure that effect in a lab ?
of course, god just made the light red.

if you don't agree with all the scientists obviously the only explanation
is that god did it.
have a nice day.

> That was my question, which went completely over your head.

well if you don't know to ask a question it's obviously that it goes 'over
my head'.
your question was how it's a reliable measure of speed.

>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

-Alexander Knopf
http://www.xyious.com/?links

________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:42:13
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"xyious" <a52dfe8@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:l3ti44x0o.ln2@recgroups.com...
: On Dec 6 2006 3:49 AM, William Coleman wrote:
: > : you can guess from the size of a star what kind of light it emits. now
if
: > : he moves towards you the wavelength of the light is shortened, and
thus
: > : shifted to red. how much obviously depends on the speed. (of course
the
: > : speed relative to you). now if the star was moving away the light
would be
: > : shifted blue.
: >
: > This is too funny. You have been expressing doubt as to my IQ, and you
have
: > got the Doppler Effect exactly backwards. Red light is lower frequency,
: > thus longer wavelength, than blue light.
:
: eh, happens.

Yes, to idiots like you who are full of shit and do not know what they are
talking about.

: > What we observe is that faraway galaxies have a greater red shift than
: > nearby galaxies, indicating a greater recessional velocity. That is the
: > foundation for the currently accepted paradigm that the universe is
: > expanding. What if something happens to light which travels billions of
: > light years which causes a red shift? Do we know that is not the case?
:
: wouldn't we notice a 'red shift' in light everywhere if there was any
: explanation for it other than the expansion of the universe ? wouldn't we
: be able to measure that effect in a lab ?

How are you going to measure something in the laboratory which is
hypothesized to happen over a distance of billions of light years?

: of course, god just made the light red.

Huh??? You know absolutely nothing about this subject, or physics in
general. I suggest that you, like Treeboy, sit the fuck down and shut the
fuck up and not embarrass yourself further.

: if you don't agree with all the scientists obviously the only explanation
: is that god did it.

Huh??? Are you attributing that explanation to me?

: have a nice day.
:
: > That was my question, which went completely over your head.
:
: well if you don't know to ask a question it's obviously that it goes 'over
: my head'.

O I C. Because you didn't understand the question, I didn't ask the
question properly.

: your question was how it's a reliable measure of speed.

Yes, that was my question, and you didn't answer it.

Let me spell it out for you very precisely. You are an ignorant, uninformed
idiot. You are not even close to being intelligent enough to be qualified
to have an opinion about my IQ or anything else.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 05:51:47
From: xyious
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6 2006 2:42 PM, William Coleman wrote:
> : wouldn't we notice a 'red shift' in light everywhere if there was any
> : explanation for it other than the expansion of the universe ? wouldn't we
> : be able to measure that effect in a lab ?
>
> How are you going to measure something in the laboratory which is
> hypothesized to happen over a distance of billions of light years?

so things that ALWAYS happen over long distances doesn't happen over short
ones.
good point you're making, why do physicists still have labs in the first
place, waste of money that one.

> Yes, that was my question, and you didn't answer it.

i did answer it.
somedood gave an explanation for why there's a red shift in the 20s/30s,
noone agrees with that anymore.... but since all the modern scientists are
morons, according to you, they all must be wrong.

> Let me spell it out for you very precisely. You are an ignorant, uninformed
> idiot.

it's ok, i've been called worse.

> William Coleman (ramashiva)

-Alexander Knopf
http://www.xyious.com/?links

----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:30:43
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"xyious" <a52dfe8@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:jgui44xdq.ln2@recgroups.com...
: On Dec 6 2006 2:42 PM, William Coleman wrote:
: > : wouldn't we notice a 'red shift' in light everywhere if there was any
: > : explanation for it other than the expansion of the universe ? wouldn't
we
: > : be able to measure that effect in a lab ?
: >
: > How are you going to measure something in the laboratory which is
: > hypothesized to happen over a distance of billions of light years?
:
: so things that ALWAYS happen over long distances doesn't happen over short
: ones.

If there is a very small effect that happens over billions of light years,
it would be too small to be measured in a lab.

: good point you're making, why do physicists still have labs in the first
: place, waste of money that one.
:
: > Yes, that was my question, and you didn't answer it.
:
: i did answer it.

No you did not. You gave an incorrect explanation of the Doppler Shift,
with which I was very conversant before you were even born. You did not in
any way explain how we know that the Red Shift is a reliable measure of
speed or distance.

: somedood gave an explanation for why there's a red shift in the 20s/30s,
: noone agrees with that anymore....

False. You don't know when to quit when you are behind, do you?

: but since all the modern scientists are
: morons, according to you, they all must be wrong.

Nice strawman argument. I said no such thing. I simply asked "I am still
waiting for someone to explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable
measure of speed or distance."

You didn't answer my question, nor has modern science. I didn't assert that
any scientists were morons.

: > Let me spell it out for you very precisely. You are an ignorant,
uninformed
: > idiot.
:
: it's ok, i've been called worse.

Why am I not surprised? People like you, who know absolutely nothing, but
think they know everything, severely degrade the signal/noise ratio of the
newsgroup. Help improve RGP. Stop posting.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 15:54:20
From: xyious
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6 2006 3:30 PM, William Coleman wrote:
> : > : wouldn't we notice a 'red shift' in light everywhere if there was any
> : > : explanation for it other than the expansion of the universe ? wouldn't
> we
> : > : be able to measure that effect in a lab ?
> : >
> : > How are you going to measure something in the laboratory which is
> : > hypothesized to happen over a distance of billions of light years?
> :
> : so things that ALWAYS happen over long distances doesn't happen over short
> : ones.
>
> If there is a very small effect that happens over billions of light years,
> it would be too small to be measured in a lab.

obviously the effect would be most noticable when the energy is at its
peak, which would be the beginning.
either the effect is significant, then it should be measurable in a
setting in a lab, or it's not, then the effect on measuring speed would be
minimal. i really don't care which of the 2 you go for.

> : but since all the modern scientists are
> : morons, according to you, they all must be wrong.
>
> Nice strawman argument. I said no such thing. I simply asked "I am still
> waiting for someone to explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable
> measure of speed or distance."

you said that steven hawking was full of shit, didn't you ? he's
considered to be one of the most intelligent people on earth.

> : > Let me spell it out for you very precisely. You are an ignorant,
> uninformed
> : > idiot.
> :
> : it's ok, i've been called worse.
>
> Why am I not surprised? People like you, who know absolutely nothing, but
> think they know everything, severely degrade the signal/noise ratio of the
> newsgroup. Help improve RGP. Stop posting.

so by missing the point about physics i degrade the signal/noise ration on
a poker newsgroup ? damn i must be good.

-Alexander Knopf
http://www.xyious.com/?links

---
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 07 Dec 2006 05:05:48
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"xyious" <a52dfe8@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:cq1k44xsp2.ln2@recgroups.com...
: On Dec 6 2006 3:30 PM, William Coleman wrote:
: > : > : wouldn't we notice a 'red shift' in light everywhere if there was
any
: > : > : explanation for it other than the expansion of the universe ?
wouldn't
: > we
: > : > : be able to measure that effect in a lab ?
: > : >
: > : > How are you going to measure something in the laboratory which is
: > : > hypothesized to happen over a distance of billions of light years?
: > :
: > : so things that ALWAYS happen over long distances doesn't happen over
short
: > : ones.
: >
: > If there is a very small effect that happens over billions of light
years,
: > it would be too small to be measured in a lab.
:
: obviously the effect would be most noticable when the energy is at its
: peak, which would be the beginning.

Why is that obvious?

: either the effect is significant, then it should be measurable in a
: setting in a lab, or it's not, then the effect on measuring speed would be
: minimal. i really don't care which of the 2 you go for.

I would like to hear your explanation of why you think a phenomenon which is
hypothesized to only be observable over distances of billions of light years
would be observable in the confines of an earthbound laboratory.

Apparently you do not understand that the Tired Light hypothesis has been
debated and written about for over 70 years. If it could have been
conclusively settled in a laboratory, that would have already happened.

And why are we debating the Tired Light hypothesis anyway? I asked a simple
question. You didn't answer it. You showed that you do not understand the
Doppler Effect.

Any rational, intelligent human being would have realized that they didn't
know what they were talking about and shut up. But now you want to continue
the debate in an area which you have already shown you do not understand.
You are just another know-it-all who knows nothing and cannot ever admit he
is wrong about anything.

: > : but since all the modern scientists are
: > : morons, according to you, they all must be wrong.
: >
: > Nice strawman argument. I said no such thing. I simply asked "I am
still
: > waiting for someone to explain to me how we know the red shift is a
reliable
: > measure of speed or distance."
:
: you said that steven hawking was full of shit, didn't you ?

Nice dishonest argumentation. I didn't say that in the context of anything
Hawking said about the Red Shift. Here is the context --

Hawking -- I think any visits by aliens, would be much more obvious, and
probably also, much more unpleasant."

Ramashiva -- Let's see. It is unlikely that beings who have mastered
interstellar travel could visit Earth without human beings being aware of
it. How could such beings possibly be that clever? You know what?
Professor Hawking is just as full of shit as you are.

: he's considered to be one of the most intelligent people on earth.

I don't care how intelligent he is, he is still full of shit with regards to
his statement that a visit by aliens would be obvious.

:
: > : > Let me spell it out for you very precisely. You are an ignorant,
uninformed idiot.
: > :
: > : it's ok, i've been called worse.
: >
: > Why am I not surprised? People like you, who know absolutely nothing,
but
: > think they know everything, severely degrade the signal/noise ratio of
the
: > newsgroup. Help improve RGP. Stop posting.
:
: so by missing the point about physics i degrade the signal/noise ration on
: a poker newsgroup ? damn i must be good.

You degrade the signal/noise ratio by posting on subjects of which you are
completely ignorant.

"A man's got to know his limitations."

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 01:34:16
From: beerboy
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

Date: 06 Dec 2006 00:52:37
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:kyndh.6820

> I am still waiting for someone to
> explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable measure of speed or
> distance.
>

Always wondered that myself. Gee, if YOU don't understand it, then what are
my hopes of ANYONE really understanding it and explaining it to me. Maybe
it's all hogwash.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:33:54
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:pvodh.64474$si3.21081@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
> "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:kyndh.6820
>
>> I am still waiting for someone to
>> explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable measure of speed or
>> distance.
>>
>
>
> Always wondered that myself. Gee, if YOU don't understand it, then what
> are my hopes of ANYONE really understanding it and explaining it to me.
> Maybe it's all hogwash.

Willie made some good points in that post. Still, with a 200+ IQ, I would
think figuring out a little "red shift" problem couldn't be that difficult.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 04:42:16
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"James L. Hankins" <jhankins5@cox.net[no spam] > wrote in message
news:DSqdh.6589$ej3.888@newsfe16.phx...
>
> "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:pvodh.64474$si3.21081@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>
>> "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:kyndh.6820
>>
>>> I am still waiting for someone to
>>> explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable measure of speed
>>> or
>>> distance.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Always wondered that myself. Gee, if YOU don't understand it, then what
>> are my hopes of ANYONE really understanding it and explaining it to me.
>> Maybe it's all hogwash.
>
>
>
> Willie made some good points in that post. Still, with a 200+ IQ, I would
> think figuring out a little "red shift" problem couldn't be that
> difficult.
>

Hey Jimmy, you've got an IQ of at LEAST 199. Why don't you try explaining
it to me!

Go easy on me. You know I never finished 9th grade.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:15:00
From: xyious
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6 2006 1:52 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
> "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:kyndh.6820
>
> > I am still waiting for someone to
> > explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable measure of speed or
> > distance.
> >
>
>
> Always wondered that myself. Gee, if YOU don't understand it, then what are
> my hopes of ANYONE really understanding it and explaining it to me. Maybe
> it's all hogwash.

jesus fucking christ, 200 ??? you have got to be kidding.

-Alexander Knopf
http://www.xyious.com/?links

--------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

Date: 06 Dec
From: Chris in Texas
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 5 2006 8:15 PM, xyious wrote:

> On Dec 6 2006 1:52 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
> > "William Coleman" wrote in message news:kyndh.6820
> >
> > > I am still waiting for someone to
> > > explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable measure of speed or
> > > distance.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Always wondered that myself. Gee, if YOU don't understand it, then what are
> >
> > my hopes of ANYONE really understanding it and explaining it to me. Maybe
> > it's all hogwash.
>
> jesus fucking christ, 200 ??? you have got to be kidding.

That's cuz Coleman's 200+ IQ determined (after a few quick calculations on a
cocktail napkin at a titty bar) that it's actually more of a magenta shift; so
the term "red shift" is confusing to him.

_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 15:12:31
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:47:28 GMT, "William Coleman"
<ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote:

<snipped >

>Do we know that is what will happen? I am still waiting for someone to
>explain to me how we know the red shift is a reliable measure of speed or
>distance.

As a distance indicator, you may have a point. As far as velocity
is concerned, the next time that you get a speeding ticket from a cop
who aimed his radar gun at you, try and talk your way out of the
ticket :-)

The reason that it works as a distance indicator is because
astronomers have found obects which server as useful objects--read up
on cepheid variables. Correlating the distances to objects with their
redshifts has led to the use of the redshift as a distance indicator.

>William Coleman (ramashiva)

David

Date: 05 Dec 2006 22:58:09
From: Bill Vanek
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:45:25 -0800, "brewmaster"
<brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote:

>Once again, I ask you WC and PP, did your god create the whole universe,
>and all within it, including life (if any) other places, or is "he" only
>concerned with earth? If so, why is "he" concerned with such a small
>speck of dust that has been around for such a short period of time, and
>will be long gone before the universe collapses back on itself?

Finally, after how many thousands of years, we're going to settle this
"is there a God" thing right here on RGP. What a great time to be
alive. I just want to thank all the exceptional, all-knowing people
who will contribute to this thread without the least bit of smugness
or arrogance, and who will share that knowledge that, for some reason,
none of the rest of us has. Poker players - what a great bunch.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:12:42
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 5 2006 2:58 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:45:25 -0800, "brewmaster"
> <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote:
>
> >Once again, I ask you WC and PP, did your god create the whole universe,
> >and all within it, including life (if any) other places, or is "he" only
> >concerned with earth? If so, why is "he" concerned with such a small
> >speck of dust that has been around for such a short period of time, and
> >will be long gone before the universe collapses back on itself?
>
> Finally, after how many thousands of years, we're going to settle this
> "is there a God" thing right here on RGP. What a great time to be
> alive. I just want to thank all the exceptional, all-knowing people
> who will contribute to this thread without the least bit of smugness
> or arrogance, and who will share that knowledge that, for some reason,
> none of the rest of us has. Poker players - what a great bunch.

Oh relax. We're having an interesting discussion. Go fold your AA
preflop.

_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:52:56
From: WuzYoungOnceToo2
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 5, 4:49 pm, "WuzYoungOnceToo2" <WuzYoungOnceT...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>
> What is citing someone who clearly knows nothing about the subject he's
> pontificating on (and can't even figure out what commas are for)
> supposed to illustrate?

Before you wet yourself here, let me clarify that I'm referring to
biological evolution, and not cosmology as what he's no authority on.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:49:01
From: WuzYoungOnceToo2
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 5, 2:45 pm, "brewmaster" <brewmas...@brewcam.com > wrote:
>
> "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as
> we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
> appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
> stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems
> could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy
> not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why
> hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonised. I discount suggestions
> that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens,
> would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/tfmj3

What is citing someone who clearly knows nothing about the subject he's
pontificating on (and can't even figure out what commas are for)
supposed to illustrate?

Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:44:37
From: WuzYoungOnceToo2
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 5, 4:24 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net >
wrote:
>
> Hey, why are you addressing this to ME? It was DP/Wuz/Luv who got in your
> face about visiting other solar systems. I happen to believe what you say
> about it being right around the corner for mankind. Just recently president
> Bush talked of our visiting Mars. So it follows that in the next couple
> elections we will probably be visiting Alpha Centauri. But DP/Wuz/Luv is a
> total BushBOT and refuses to give any credibility to any other president but
> his darling little George Bush, so that's why he was dissing you. Take his
> comments in stride. He just wants to be argumentative.

Yeah, but I've go the fact that I'm no commie fuck going for me.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 22:27:33
From: beerboy
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

If so,

Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:27:22
From: ericpeter@ricochet.com
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

google the DRAKE EQUATION for a probability on extraterrestrial life.
Olemite wrote:
> I know the answers to all your questions, but I can't give you any
> evidence to prove it. Nobody can. You are asking questions you don't
> even want to know the answer for.
>
> Ole
>
> brewmaster wrote:
> > "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as
> > we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
> > appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
> > stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems
> > could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy
> > not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why
> > hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonised. I discount suggestions
> > that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens,
> > would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/tfmj3
> >
> > Once again, I ask you WC and PP, did your god create the whole universe,
> > and all within it, including life (if any) other places, or is "he" only
> > concerned with earth? If so, why is "he" concerned with such a small
> > speck of dust that has been around for such a short period of time, and
> > will be long gone before the universe collapses back on itself?
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 22:24:49
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message
news:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...

>
> Once again, I ask you WC and PP, did your god create the whole universe,
> and all within it, including life (if any) other places, or is "he" only
> concerned with earth? If so, why is "he" concerned with such a small
> speck of dust that has been around for such a short period of time, and
> will be long gone before the universe collapses back on itself?
>

Hey, why are you addressing this to ME? It was DP/Wuz/Luv who got in your
face about visiting other solar systems. I happen to believe what you say
about it being right around the corner for mankind. Just recently president
Bush talked of our visiting Mars. So it follows that in the next couple
elections we will probably be visiting Alpha Centauri. But DP/Wuz/Luv is a
total BushBOT and refuses to give any credibility to any other president but
his darling little George Bush, so that's why he was dissing you. Take his
comments in stride. He just wants to be argumentative.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:11:16
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 5 2006 2:24 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:

> "brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com> wrote in message
> news:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> >
> > Once again, I ask you WC and PP, did your god create the whole universe,
> > and all within it, including life (if any) other places, or is "he" only
> > concerned with earth? If so, why is "he" concerned with such a small
> > speck of dust that has been around for such a short period of time, and
> > will be long gone before the universe collapses back on itself?
> >
>
> Hey, why are you addressing this to ME? It was DP/Wuz/Luv who got in your
> face about visiting other solar systems. I happen to believe what you say
> about it being right around the corner for mankind. Just recently president
> Bush talked of our visiting Mars. So it follows that in the next couple
> elections we will probably be visiting Alpha Centauri. But DP/Wuz/Luv is a
> total BushBOT and refuses to give any credibility to any other president but
> his darling little George Bush, so that's why he was dissing you. Take his
> comments in stride. He just wants to be argumentative.
>
> -Paul Popinjay

Ok, sorry Paul. You three were all attacking me, so, you know, I aimed it
back at you. I'm surprised...I don't think you've ever agreed with me.

-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:16:17
From: Olemite
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

I know the answers to all your questions, but I can't give you any
evidence to prove it. Nobody can. You are asking questions you don't
even want to know the answer for.

Ole

brewmaster wrote:
> "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as
> we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
> appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
> stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems
> could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy
> not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why
> hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonised. I discount suggestions
> that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens,
> would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/tfmj3
>
> Once again, I ask you WC and PP, did your god create the whole universe,
> and all within it, including life (if any) other places, or is "he" only
> concerned with earth? If so, why is "he" concerned with such a small
> speck of dust that has been around for such a short period of time, and
> will be long gone before the universe collapses back on itself?
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:57:21
From: Kinnipak
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 5 2006 4:16 PM, Olemite wrote:

> I know the answers to all your questions, but I can't give you any
> evidence to prove it. Nobody can. You are asking questions you don't
> even want to know the answer for.
>
> Ole

Look, it's not in my nature to be mysterious. But I can't talk about it
and I can't talk about why.

Oooooooooo

________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:15:05
From: Susan
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/sc...of10/index.html

"brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message
news:5c2h44xc8t.ln2@recgroups.com...
> "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as
> we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
> appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
> stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems
> could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy
> not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why
> hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonised. I discount suggestions
> that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens,
> would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/tfmj3
>
> Once again, I ask you WC and PP, did your god create the whole universe,
> and all within it, including life (if any) other places, or is "he" only
> concerned with earth? If so, why is "he" concerned with such a small
> speck of dust that has been around for such a short period of time, and
> will be long gone before the universe collapses back on itself?
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
>

Date: 06 Dec 2006 09:40:17
From: Howard Treesong
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

Coleman: You're an idiot.

Me: Must you constantly process-foul?

Coleman: No idea what that means.

I criticized your question, not you. And I did so correctly: strictly
speaking, redshift measures velocity rather than distance, whereas your
question suggested it could measure either. It can, as I suggested, be
used as part of a broader methodology to measure distance, but that
depends critically on other estimation steps such as the Cepheid
variable relationship I mentioned -- although of course that isn't
useful for intergalactic distances. You responded by attacking me
personally, as you often do to people around here. Is there a purpose?

More generally, I don't think cosmology is tidy. Clearly, it is not.
I do not know if Arp is right, but I will read his book on your
recommendation. In response, I recommend "The Blind Side," by Michael
Lewis. It has nothing to do with cosmology; rather, it deals with high
school and college football. But it is extraordinarily well-written
and interesting.

-Howard Treesong

Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:53:56
From: JohnnyYooper
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

Paul Popinjay wrote:
> I was interested, until you came up with THIS shit. How the fuck would you
> know that they're be 'nice' aliens? You say there would be absolutely no
> reason to believe they'd pose any kind of threat. Like I said, you just
> lost me, because you are obviously full of shit. There is PLENTY of reason,
> you idiot.
>
> -Paul Popinjay

paul! i'm shocked. this david guy knows more about astronomy than
everybody here put together. and he's been very civil in his remarks.
what do you want to call him names for?
besides, theres millions of species of life on earth and we cant
talk to any of them. how are we ever going to communicate with an
alien? it'd be like trying to talk to an ant or a bee.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:16:12
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"JohnnyYooper" <JohnnyYooper@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165424036.145315.80700@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> paul! i'm shocked. this david guy knows more about astronomy than
> everybody here put together. and he's been very civil in his remarks.
> what do you want to call him names for?
> besides, theres millions of species of life on earth and we cant
> talk to any of them. how are we ever going to communicate with an
> alien? it'd be like trying to talk to an ant or a bee.
>

As I have said to David in another post, he has no reason to suspect that
the aliens are not dangerous. I don't care how much he thinks he knows
about astronomy. Anyone has to be an idiot to think the aliens must be
peace-loving. Hence, I suspect he is just a troll, because he doesn't sound
as stupid as his comments actually are.

But just to humor him for a moment, let's say there are many many other
communities of intelligent life out there. Say that 99% are peaceful and
mellow. What's to say that the first space ship that finds its way here
isn't the 1% that is flying the alien skull & crossbones? Hello! They're
PIRATE aliens! They've come here to loot, rape, and pillage. And they've
got some MEAN friggin ray guns. So I'd hate to trust the safety of our
planet to idiots who think like David. When the aliens first come here, it
would obviously be best to blast the shit out of them first and ask
questions later. God bless America.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:27:06
From: Susan
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

You are making the assumption that there is something here that they would
want.

Kind of like ant hills in the woods - we find them and ignore them.

"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:0GEdh.47604$Fg.30410@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> "JohnnyYooper" <JohnnyYooper@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165424036.145315.80700@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> paul! i'm shocked. this david guy knows more about astronomy than
>> everybody here put together. and he's been very civil in his remarks.
>> what do you want to call him names for?
>> besides, theres millions of species of life on earth and we cant
>> talk to any of them. how are we ever going to communicate with an
>> alien? it'd be like trying to talk to an ant or a bee.
>>
>
> As I have said to David in another post, he has no reason to suspect that
> the aliens are not dangerous. I don't care how much he thinks he knows
> about astronomy. Anyone has to be an idiot to think the aliens must be
> peace-loving. Hence, I suspect he is just a troll, because he doesn't
> sound as stupid as his comments actually are.
>
> But just to humor him for a moment, let's say there are many many other
> communities of intelligent life out there. Say that 99% are peaceful and
> mellow. What's to say that the first space ship that finds its way here
> isn't the 1% that is flying the alien skull & crossbones? Hello! They're
> PIRATE aliens! They've come here to loot, rape, and pillage. And they've
> got some MEAN friggin ray guns. So I'd hate to trust the safety of our
> planet to idiots who think like David. When the aliens first come here,
> it would obviously be best to blast the shit out of them first and ask
> questions later. God bless America.
>
> -Paul Popinjay
>

Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:38:42
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 13:27:06 -0600, "Susan" <sdbratt48@netscape.net >
wrote:

>You are making the assumption that there is something here that they would
>want.
>
>Kind of like ant hills in the woods - we find them and ignore them.
>

Sure, but you are a girl.
(Not that there is anything wrong with that.)

Boys that find ant hills look for ways to destroy the anthill and kill
the ants.

I used to be a little boy myself, so I know this.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:21:46
From: Peg Smith
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote:

>What's to say that the first space ship that finds its way here
>isn't the 1% that is flying the alien skull & crossbones? Hello! They're
>PIRATE aliens! They've come here to loot, rape, and pillage.

If they're that far advanced, what the fuck could we have that they
would want to loot, rape, or pillage? Maybe blow up the whole planet
for laughs, as children like to stomp on anthills, that I could almost
see; but...uh...rape us? Steal our stereos?

You crack me up, Paul.

Peg

Date: 06 Dec 2006 21:12:13
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:21:46 -0600, Peg Smith
<PegSmithNow@aol.comnojunk > wrote:

>"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>What's to say that the first space ship that finds its way here
>>isn't the 1% that is flying the alien skull & crossbones? Hello! They're
>>PIRATE aliens! They've come here to loot, rape, and pillage.
>
>If they're that far advanced, what the fuck could we have that they
>would want to loot, rape, or pillage? Maybe blow up the whole planet
>for laughs, as children like to stomp on anthills, that I could almost
>see; but...uh...rape us? Steal our stereos?
>
>You crack me up, Paul.

It would be funny, except I think he believes what he writes. In
this case, he is just sad.

>Peg

David

Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:33:58
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Peg Smith" <PegSmithNow@aol.comnojunk > wrote in message
news:9u5en25m8g0bketv4kc397s463dpteum89@4ax.com...
> "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>What's to say that the first space ship that finds its way here
>>isn't the 1% that is flying the alien skull & crossbones? Hello! They're
>>PIRATE aliens! They've come here to loot, rape, and pillage.
>
> If they're that far advanced, what the fuck could we have that they
> would want to loot, rape, or pillage? Maybe blow up the whole planet
> for laughs, as children like to stomp on anthills, that I could almost
> see; but...uh...rape us? Steal our stereos?
>

You are going to ask why they would want to rape our women when they are so
"advanced"? You sound almost as naive as David. Does it MATTER why they
want to rape our women? Will it make it any better if they have a "reason"
to rape our women? Typical bleeding heart liberal. Oh, the poor aliens are
only here to rape our women because society made them like that. They had
rough alien childhoods. Look, you dumb broad, you just better hope that
they take my advice and blast the shit out of the aliens first and ask
questions later. Because I've heard that aliens have some VERY big penises.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 06 Dec 2006 20:05:15
From: beerboy
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

In news:GWEdh.47607$Fg.38355@tornado.socal.rr.com,
Paul Popinjay <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > typed:

Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:50:25
From: Peg Smith
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote:

>> If they're that far advanced, what the fuck could we have that they
>> would want to loot, rape, or pillage? Maybe blow up the whole planet
>> for laughs, as children like to stomp on anthills, that I could almost
>> see; but...uh...rape us? Steal our stereos?
>>
>
>
>You are going to ask why they would want to rape our women when they are so
>"advanced"? You sound almost as naive as David. Does it MATTER why they
>want to rape our women? Will it make it any better if they have a "reason"
>to rape our women?

I would imagine that our women would be as foreign (and unappetizing)
to them as other female species here are to us.

>Typical bleeding heart liberal.

LOL. Yeah, that's me, a real bleeding heart. Just can't get anything
past you, Paul, can I?

>Oh, the poor aliens are
>only here to rape our women because society made them like that. They had
>rough alien childhoods. Look, you dumb broad, you just better hope that
>they take my advice and blast the shit out of the aliens first and ask
>questions later. Because I've heard that aliens have some VERY big penises.

Oooooh, you didn't tell me that earlier. You say that as if it's a
*bad* thing. When can we women expect these bad boys to show up? I
want to practice my "Hey, sailor," line.

Peg

Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:39:37
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:50:25 -0600, Peg Smith
<PegSmithNow@aol.comnojunk > wrote:

>
>Oooooh, you didn't tell me that earlier. You say that as if it's a
>*bad* thing. When can we women expect these bad boys to show up? I
>want to practice my "Hey, sailor," line.
>
>Peg

If you haven't had enough time to practice that line already, I'd say
it was too by late now.

Susan

Date: 06 Dec 2006 18:27:31
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On 6 Dec 2006 08:53:56 -0800, "JohnnyYooper" <JohnnyYooper@gmail.com >
wrote:

>
>Paul Popinjay wrote:
>> I was interested, until you came up with THIS shit. How the fuck would you
>> know that they're be 'nice' aliens? You say there would be absolutely no
>> reason to believe they'd pose any kind of threat. Like I said, you just
>> lost me, because you are obviously full of shit. There is PLENTY of reason,
>> you idiot.
>>
>> -Paul Popinjay
>
> paul! i'm shocked. this david guy knows more about astronomy than
>everybody here put together. and he's been very civil in his remarks.
>what do you want to call him names for?
> besides, theres millions of species of life on earth and we cant
>talk to any of them. how are we ever going to communicate with an
>alien? it'd be like trying to talk to an ant or a bee.

Actually, mathematics is most likely a universal language. The
symbols that one uses to express mathematical concepts are not
important--the results will still be consistent. Unfortunately for
us, bees and ants have no concept of higher mathematics :-)

David

Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:10:34
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6 2006 9:53 AM, JohnnyYooper wrote:

> Paul Popinjay wrote:
> > I was interested, until you came up with THIS shit. How the fuck would you
> > know that they're be 'nice' aliens? You say there would be absolutely no
> > reason to believe they'd pose any kind of threat. Like I said, you just
> > lost me, because you are obviously full of shit. There is PLENTY of
reason,
> > you idiot.
> >
> > -Paul Popinjay
>
> paul! i'm shocked. this david guy knows more about astronomy than
> everybody here put together. and he's been very civil in his remarks.
> what do you want to call him names for?
> besides, theres millions of species of life on earth and we cant
> talk to any of them. how are we ever going to communicate with an
> alien? it'd be like trying to talk to an ant or a bee.

Mathematics of course... haven't you ever seen Contact? :)

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

Date: 07 Dec
From: jd00123
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6 2006 10:53 AM, JohnnyYooper wrote:

> Paul Popinjay wrote:
> > I was interested, until you came up with THIS shit. How the fuck would you
> > know that they're be 'nice' aliens? You say there would be absolutely no
> > reason to believe they'd pose any kind of threat. Like I said, you just
> > lost me, because you are obviously full of shit. There is PLENTY of reason,
> > you idiot.
> >
> > -Paul Popinjay
>
> paul! i'm shocked. this david guy knows more about astronomy than
> everybody here put together. and he's been very civil in his remarks.
> what do you want to call him names for?
> besides, theres millions of species of life on earth and we cant
> talk to any of them. how are we ever going to communicate with an
> alien? it'd be like trying to talk to an ant or a bee.

Hell Paul suspects the boy scouts of being under the influence of the tri
lateral commission, what chance do you think an alien would have??

"patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
"the jingo nationalist is always the first to accuse his fellow countryman as
traitors"

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:32:56
From: JohnnyYooper
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

David wrote:
>
> This is also not the case. Using interferometry, astronomers imaged
> solar spots on Betelgeuse decades ago. This was possible because
> Betelgeuse is relatively close to us and HUGE. If we were to replace
> our sun with Betelgeuse, the orbits of all the inner planets would be
> swallowed up.
>
> David

wow. amazing. what do i know. lol. its hard to believe a star could
be that big. theres about a dozen stars they can see the disk shape.
heres what wikipedia says about it:

"Betelgeuse is a red supergiant, one of the physically largest stars
known. If it were placed at the center of our solar system, its outer
surface would possibly extend to the orbit of Jupiter. As it is,
Betelgeuse is so large and so close that it is the star with the third
largest angular diameter as viewed from Earth [2], smaller only than
the Sun and R Doradus, and one of only a dozen or so stars that
telescopes have imaged as a visible disk ...."

Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:25:33
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

> "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as
> we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
> appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
> stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems
> could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy
> not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why
> hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonised. I discount suggestions
> that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens,
> would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/tfmj3
>
> Once again, I ask you WC and PP, did your god create the whole universe,
> and all within it, including life (if any) other places, or is "he" only
> concerned with earth? If so, why is "he" concerned with such a small
> speck of dust that has been around for such a short period of time, and
> will be long gone before the universe collapses back on itself?

this is an interesting thread, and i was wondering if some of the better
versed could suggest a reading list for the less-informed (mind you,
looking for theoretical not mathematical). my reading list currently
consists of:

http://www.amazon.com/House-Morgan-American-Banking-Finance/dp/0671734008
(almost finished)

and.....

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Atomic-Bomb-Richard-Rhodes/dp/0684813785

looking for reading following my completion of these (thought i'd share
them for others looking for some historical reading that i deem
worthwhile).

thanks in advance!

mo_charles

________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 06:37:18
From: Howard Treesong
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

William Coleman wrote:

> You're an idiot. The distances to distant galaxies are estimated by the
> degree of red shift.

Must you constantly process-foul?

The relative velocity is measured by the red-shift, and that's then
converted to the distance domain by some other estimation mechanism. I
don't think the redshift is a direct distance measure.

-Howard Treesong

Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:53:51
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Howard Treesong" <ricklee90@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165415838.849512.144190@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
: William Coleman wrote:
:
: > You're an idiot. The distances to distant galaxies are estimated by the
: > degree of red shift.
:
: Must you constantly process-foul?

No idea what that means.

: The relative velocity is measured by the red-shift, and that's then
: converted to the distance domain by some other estimation mechanism.

Yes, it's called Hubble's Law, which states that distance is proportional to
recessional velocity.

: I don't think the redshift is a direct distance measure.

Did I say it was?

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:51:46
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Howard Treesong" <ricklee90@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165415838.849512.144190@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> William Coleman wrote:
>
>> You're an idiot. The distances to distant galaxies are estimated by the
>> degree of red shift.
>
> Must you constantly process-foul?
>

I was wondering the same thing, Howard.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:40:13
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:51:46 GMT, "Paul Popinjay"
<paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote:

>"Howard Treesong" <ricklee90@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1165415838.849512.144190@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> William Coleman wrote:
>>
>>> You're an idiot. The distances to distant galaxies are estimated by the
>>> degree of red shift.
>>
>> Must you constantly process-foul?
>>
>
>I was wondering the same thing, Howard.
>

He's a lawyer, Popinjay.

Don't ask.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 06:33:56
From: Howard Treesong
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

William Coleman wrote:

> Tired light is a hypothetical redshift mechanism proposed as an alternative
> explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. Tired light was first
> proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky [1] who suggested that photons might slowly
> lose energy as they travel vast distances through a static universe by
> interaction with matter or other photons, or by some novel physical
> mechanism. Since a decrease in energy corresponds to an increase in light's
> wavelength, this effect would produce a redshift in spectral lines that
> increase proportionally with the distance of the source. The term "tired
> light" was coined by Richard Tolman in the early 1930s [2].
>
> Tired light mechanisms were one of the proposed alternatives to the Big Bang
> and the Steady State cosmologies that both proposed Hubble's law was
> associated with a metric expansion of space. Through the middle of the
> twentieth century, most cosmologists supported one of these two paradigms,
> but there were a few scientists who worked with the tired light alternative.
> As the discipline of observational cosmology developed in the late twentieth
> century and the associated data became more numerous and accurate, the Big
> Bang emerged as the predominant cosmological theory and is accepted in the
> current parametrization of the state and evolution of the universe. There
> are a few modern proponents of nonstandard cosmologies who rely on tired
> light mechanisms, e.g. Crawford (1993), though the vast majority of
> physicists and astronomers accept the conclusions of various studies [2] [3]
> that such an effect either does not or cannot account for cosmological
> redshifts.

Thank you. That's an interesting post. I had not heard of this idea,
but half-suspected you had something in mind. I take it, however, that
because the "vast majority" accept the conclusions that it doesn't or
cannot account for cosmological redshifts, you don't put any credence
in this theory either. Any others of which you're aware?

-Howard Treesong

Date: 06 Dec 2006 15:05:40
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:45:25 -0800, "brewmaster"
<brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote:

>"What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as
>we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the
>appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other
>stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems
>could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy
>not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why
>hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonised. I discount suggestions
>that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens,
>would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."

The chances of us ever encountering other life forms (intelligent)
in our galaxy are slim to none. Personally, I believe that they are
out there; however, the distances that one must traverse are
overwhelming.

It is not true that other civilizations may have formed five billion
years before the earth. There is something called a zoological zone
where life may have the opportunity to form, and it is a thin band
within the milkway galaxy. Basically, there is a need for heavy
elements, which require many, many novae and supernovae events. These
heavy elements can be found in a ring around the galaxy. Our system
finds itself inside of this ring.

The earth has not been visited for the simple fact that only in the
last century, or so, have we made our whereabouts known to the rest of
the galaxy. This means that only stellar systems within a radius of
100 light years would have a chance of detecting us. So far, there
are no stars within that radius which show any promise of being able
to support life, as we know it.

Believing that a visit by alien life forms would be unpleasant for
us shows that you read too much science ficiton. There would be
absolutely no reason to believe that they would pose any threat to
us--except, perhaps, a biological one. The possibility of exposing us
to unknown strains of bacteria and virii would be the largest threat.
I would have to assume, though, that any civilization of finding us
would also have some sort of "prime directive," if you would like to
call it that.

>http://tinyurl.com/tfmj3
>
>Once again, I ask you WC and PP, did your god create the whole universe,
>and all within it, including life (if any) other places, or is "he" only
>concerned with earth? If so, why is "he" concerned with such a small
>speck of dust that has been around for such a short period of time, and
>will be long gone before the universe collapses back on itself?

The verdict is still out on the collapsing universe. As it stands
right now, it does not appear that the universe will, in fact, suffer
this collapse. In actuality, the universe is expanding at an
accelerated rate, which does not fit the early models. Read up on
dark matter, dark energy and the great attractor.

The formation of the universe was an incredibly lucky occurence. If
the precentages of matter existing at the beginning were just a little
bit different, the universe would never have formed. Having said
that, with the enormity of space, chances are good that many universes
have formed. Unfortunately, for all intents and purposes we are
alone, since we can never learn about these other universes.

The same holds true for us. We are essentially alone in the
universe, although it is probably teeming with life. The distances
that need to be overcome are unattainable for us. Forget about worm
holes and travelling as fast, or faster than the speed of light--it
will never happen.

David

Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:28:12
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote in message
news:piidn2ht484qrkg2kd625gdtscgckhlbe1@4ax.com...

>
> Believing that a visit by alien life forms would be unpleasant for
> us shows that you read too much science ficiton. There would be
> absolutely no reason to believe that they would pose any threat to
> us--except, perhaps, a biological one.
>

I was interested, until you came up with THIS shit. How the fuck would you
know that they're be 'nice' aliens? You say there would be absolutely no
reason to believe they'd pose any kind of threat. Like I said, you just
lost me, because you are obviously full of shit. There is PLENTY of reason,
you idiot.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 06 Dec 2006 18:20:03
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:28:12 GMT, "Paul Popinjay"
<paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote:

>
>"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote in message
>news:piidn2ht484qrkg2kd625gdtscgckhlbe1@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> Believing that a visit by alien life forms would be unpleasant for
>> us shows that you read too much science ficiton. There would be
>> absolutely no reason to believe that they would pose any threat to
>> us--except, perhaps, a biological one.
>>
>
>I was interested, until you came up with THIS shit. How the fuck would you
>know that they're be 'nice' aliens? You say there would be absolutely no
>reason to believe they'd pose any kind of threat. Like I said, you just
>lost me, because you are obviously full of shit. There is PLENTY of reason,
>you idiot.

Ok, Paul, tell me why we should be afraid of intelligent alien life
forms? This is an utterly ridiculous statement that you have simply
pulled out of your ass.

The only rational fear would be that of biological contamination.
Remember what happened to the native indians received a visit from the
early explorers? Smallpox wiped out more of them than all of the guns
and cannons that the invaders brought with them.

To call me an idiot when you are trying to discuss a topic that you
obviously know nothing about is a real treat for me today. Thank you
for providing a little comic relief to an otherwise dreary december
day.

>-Paul Popinjay

David

Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:16:12
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote in message
news:fiudn2ttj5n0etkcdtd870i6ockb3b865f@4ax.com...
>
> Ok, Paul, tell me why we should be afraid of intelligent alien life
> forms? This is an utterly ridiculous statement that you have simply
> pulled out of your ass.
>

Because they've got ray guns, you stupid mutherfucker.

Obviously you are a troll because no one with half a brain would make an
idiotic statement like you have. YOU, have no reasonable basis to conclude
that the aliens would NOT be dangerous. Please, if you are just trolling
you need to get a life. If all you have to do is get on this newsgroup and
try to jerk people's strings and push their buttons with your typical crazy
sounding nonsense, maybe you really need to go out and find yourself a girl
or something. Btw, I am considering killfiling you.

Paul Popinjay

Date: 06 Dec 2006 21:10:33
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:16:12 GMT, "Paul Popinjay"
<paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote:

>"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote in message
>news:fiudn2ttj5n0etkcdtd870i6ockb3b865f@4ax.com...
>>
>> Ok, Paul, tell me why we should be afraid of intelligent alien life
>> forms? This is an utterly ridiculous statement that you have simply
>> pulled out of your ass.
>>
>
>Because they've got ray guns, you stupid mutherfucker.

GWB, is that you? Not satisfied with the WMD'S that supposedly
existed in Iraq, now you want to take on the aliens because they might
have some? And you call me stupid. That is pretty fucking funny.

>Obviously you are a troll because no one with half a brain would make an
>idiotic statement like you have. YOU, have no reasonable basis to conclude
>that the aliens would NOT be dangerous. Please, if you are just trolling
>you need to get a life. If all you have to do is get on this newsgroup and
>try to jerk people's strings and push their buttons with your typical crazy
>sounding nonsense, maybe you really need to go out and find yourself a girl
>or something. Btw, I am considering killfiling you.

Please, killfile me. Then I don't have to worry about some stupid
remarks from someone that has absolutely no clue trying to sound half
as ntelligent as a gorilla.

>Paul Popinjay

David (please, please, please, killfile me)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 12:22:26
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

trolled, retrolled, and trolled some more. kudos, paul - another
masterpiece.

mo_charles

_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:22:49
From: Peg Smith
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote:

>Please, if you are just trolling
>you need to get a life. If all you have to do is get on this newsgroup and
>try to jerk people's strings and push their buttons with your typical crazy
>sounding nonsense, maybe you really need to go out and find yourself a girl
>or something.

<cough >

Peg

Date: 06 Dec 2006 20:35:34
From: Tom White
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
+ Ok, Paul, tell me why we should be afraid of intelligent alien life
+ forms?

Because, judging from human experience, the aggressive members
of an intelligent species are going to dominate the clever.

We already know "Any species smart enough to develop space
travel would be too smart to practice suicide bombing" is
false.

+ This is an utterly ridiculous statement that you have simply
+ pulled out of your ass.

He pulled it out of Hobbes's ass, but in the privacy of his
own home.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 20:51:18
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Tom White" <tominator@bulldogcountry.c0m.com > wrote in message
news:el79im$lk2$1@chessie.cirr.com...

> David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
> + Ok, Paul, tell me why we should be afraid of intelligent alien life
> + forms?
>
> Because, judging from human experience, the aggressive members
> of an intelligent species are going to dominate the clever.
>
> We already know "Any species smart enough to develop space
> travel would be too smart to practice suicide bombing" is
> false.
>
> + This is an utterly ridiculous statement that you have simply
> + pulled out of your ass.
>
> He pulled it out of Hobbes's ass, but in the privacy of his
> own home.
>

Thankyou, Tom. Finally I am taken serious by someone around here. All my
so-called friends, Peg, Susan, Wuz/Luv, Mo Charles, they are just laughing
and making fun of me and not taking me seriously. Just wait till the
revolution comes. They'll get theirs.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 15:03:02
From: Peg Smith
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote:

>Thankyou, Tom. Finally I am taken serious by someone around here. All my
>so-called friends, Peg, Susan, Wuz/Luv, Mo Charles, they are just laughing
>and making fun of me and not taking me seriously. Just wait till the
>revolution comes. They'll get theirs.

Well, I hope I get mine from an alien with one of the BIG penises. I
sure don't want an alien who's nickname is Stumpy.

Peg

Date: 06 Dec 21:20:06
From: CHarrison100
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6 2006 4:03 PM, Peg Smith wrote:

> "Paul Popinjay" wrote:
>
> >Thankyou, Tom. Finally I am taken serious by someone around here. All my
> >so-called friends, Peg, Susan, Wuz/Luv, Mo Charles, they are just laughing
> >and making fun of me and not taking me seriously. Just wait till the
> >revolution comes. They'll get theirs.
>
> Well, I hope I get mine from an alien with one of the BIG penises. I
> sure don't want an alien who's nickname is Stumpy.
>
> Peg

See Paul your answer is right here with Peg. No reason for them to rape and
blunder They'll just line up at Peg's

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 15:10:33
From: Susan
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

ho

"Peg Smith" <PegSmithNow@aol.comnojunk > wrote in message
news:iuben2l2ql0fub19ndhrnjeuniral3cotg@4ax.com...
> "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Thankyou, Tom. Finally I am taken serious by someone around here. All my
>>so-called friends, Peg, Susan, Wuz/Luv, Mo Charles, they are just laughing
>>and making fun of me and not taking me seriously. Just wait till the
>>revolution comes. They'll get theirs.
>
> Well, I hope I get mine from an alien with one of the BIG penises. I
> sure don't want an alien who's nickname is Stumpy.
>
> Peg

Date: 07 Dec 23:24:20
From: Chris in Texas
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

ho ho ho

(Seasonal variation of tee hee)

On Dec 6 2006 3:09 PM, Susan wrote:

> ho
>
>
> "Peg Smith" wrote in message
> news:iuben2l2ql0fub19ndhrnjeuniral3cotg@4ax.com...
> > "Paul Popinjay" wrote:
> >
> >>Thankyou, Tom. Finally I am taken serious by someone around here. All my
> >>so-called friends, Peg, Susan, Wuz/Luv, Mo Charles, they are just laughing
> >>and making fun of me and not taking me seriously. Just wait till the
> >>revolution comes. They'll get theirs.
> >
> > Well, I hope I get mine from an alien with one of the BIG penises. I
> > sure don't want an alien who's nickname is Stumpy.
> >
> > Peg

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 07 Dec 2006 15:02:28
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:03:02 -0600, Peg Smith
<PegSmithNow@aol.comnojunk > wrote:

>"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Thankyou, Tom. Finally I am taken serious by someone around here. All my
>>so-called friends, Peg, Susan, Wuz/Luv, Mo Charles, they are just laughing
>>and making fun of me and not taking me seriously. Just wait till the
>>revolution comes. They'll get theirs.
>
>Well, I hope I get mine from an alien with one of the BIG penises. I
>sure don't want an alien who's nickname is Stumpy.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Peg

David

Date: 06 Dec 14:27:08
From: arlo payne
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6 2006 7:05 AM, David wrote:

> I would have to assume, though, that any civilization of finding us
> would also have some sort of "prime directive," if you would like to
> call it that.

Clearly a little to much star trek as a kid I see :)

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:31:01
From: JohnnyYooper
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

FellKnight wrote:

>
> Mathematics of course... haven't you ever seen Contact? :)
>
> Fell

you mean like:

alien: "pi r square"
man: "no, pie are round"

yeah, i know what you mean, math being the universal language. but,
sometimes i think that mankind thinks that aliens will be more similar
to ourselves than they will end up being should we ever meet one. its
like susan said, they may be so advanced, that we are too simple to
bother with. maybe their normal communication rate will be a billlion
time faster than us. or they'll be the size of bacteria. i think more
than likely, we'd see an alien exploratory machines before any real
live alien.
regardless, whatever and whenever it happens, it'll probably be the
greatest event ever in history.
i've seen Contact. pretty good movie, but i cant stand that actress.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 20:33:04
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6 2006 8:31 PM, JohnnyYooper wrote:

> FellKnight wrote:
>
> >
> > Mathematics of course... haven't you ever seen Contact? :)
> >
> > Fell
>
>
> you mean like:
>
> alien: "pi r square"
> man: "no, pie are round"
>
> yeah, i know what you mean, math being the universal language. but,
> sometimes i think that mankind thinks that aliens will be more similar
> to ourselves than they will end up being should we ever meet one. its
> like susan said, they may be so advanced, that we are too simple to
> bother with. maybe their normal communication rate will be a billlion
> time faster than us. or they'll be the size of bacteria. i think more
> than likely, we'd see an alien exploratory machines before any real
> live alien.
> regardless, whatever and whenever it happens, it'll probably be the
> greatest event ever in history.
> i've seen Contact. pretty good movie, but i cant stand that actress.

Read the book then... the book was 1000x better.

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 07 Dec 2006 04:17:37
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"JohnnyYooper" <JohnnyYooper@gmail.com > wrote in message

> its
> like susan said, they may be so advanced, that we are too simple to
> bother with. maybe their normal communication rate will be a billlion
> time faster than us.
>

We cannot afford to take chances. We need to disable their spacecraft, and
intern them. Since they are not human, we will not have to be thwarted by
silly constitutional protections against torture, and we can learn what we
need to know about other parts of the universe by creative interrogation
methods if need be. Before any of you sympathizers jump on me for saying
what needs to be said, just remember that our whole civilization could be at
risk. We simply cannot take this chance. No doubt there will be
collaborators amongst you who will sell us out in the name of peace. Mostly
you democrats. But I, for one, do not intend to give up my freedom as an
American to any of those green mutherfuckers.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 06 Dec 2006 17:18:52
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6, 5:54 pm, "xyious" <a52d...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
>
> obviously the effect would be most noticable when the energy is at its
> peak, which would be the beginning.

Why do you think that is obvious? Why couldn't such an effect be
constant regardless of energy level? If you have a 1 gallon bucket of
water and remove 1 teaspoon of water from it every second, is 1
teaspoon a greater amount when the bucket is full than it is when the
bucket is nearly empty?

> either the effect is significant, then it should be measurable in a
> setting in a lab, or it's not, then the effect on measuring speed would be
> minimal. i really don't care which of the 2 you go for.

Aim a laser at a point on a target within the confinse of a laboratory
(even one as large as the entire Earth) and it is possible (even almost
certain) that the center of the beam will not exactly coincide with the
center of the point on the target being aimed for due to the aiming of
the laser being off by a minute fraction of one second of arc. If this
error is small enough it would be undetectable with current measuring
device technology. But it would eventually be detectable by that same
equipment over a sufficiently long distance. Alas, the distance
required is too large to be replicated in any laboratory. Does that
make the effect non-existent?

Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:48:29
From: WuzYoungOnceToo2
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6, 3:43 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net >
wrote:
>
> I think my response was that there would be PLENTY!
>
> And I'm right. If you listen to pussies like David, it will get us all
> killed.
>
> I'll stand by my earlier statement. When the aliens arrive, blast the
> living shit out of them first, and ask questions later.

And have that big-assed robot Gort start vaporizing our tanks and shit?
Not thanks.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:22:14
From: WuzYoungOnceToo2
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6, 3:15 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net >
wrote:
>
> That's not how he sounded to me at all. It sounded like he was saying it is
> unreasonable to anticipate their unfriendliness.

Fortunately, we have his exact words at out disposal:

"There would be absolutely no reason to believe that they would pose
any threat to
us--except, perhaps, a biological one."

He's not saying anything about anticipation as a precaution. He's
talking about irrational presumption.

> I think
> it is MUCH more logical to anticipate their unfriendliness than not. But
> regardless, I'm a pretty perceptive person regarding people's character.
> With just his few comments, I believe I have accurately pegged David and his
> character flaw. And I'm right on that, ain't I, Dan? You agree with me and
> you know it!

Let's just pretend that I do.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 21:43:36
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"WuzYoungOnceToo2" <WuzYoungOnceToo2@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165440134.564529.128850@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 6, 3:15 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> That's not how he sounded to me at all. It sounded like he was saying it
>> is
>> unreasonable to anticipate their unfriendliness.
>
> Fortunately, we have his exact words at out disposal:
>
> "There would be absolutely no reason to believe that they would pose
> any threat to
> us...."
>

I think my response was that there would be PLENTY!

And I'm right. If you listen to pussies like David, it will get us all
killed.

I'll stand by my earlier statement. When the aliens arrive, blast the
living shit out of them first, and ask questions later.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 07 Dec 23:42:59
From: Chris in Texas
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6 2006 3:43 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:

>
> I'll stand by my earlier statement. When the aliens arrive, blast the
> living shit out of them first, and ask questions later.
>

Wow, so this is your stance on all aliens, just not illegals from Mexico &
Central America?

Cuidado, hombre....

Chris

_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:02:04
From: WuzYoungOnceToo2
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6, 2:51 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net >
wrote:
>
> Thankyou, Tom. Finally I am taken serious by someone around here. All my
> so-called friends, Peg, Susan, Wuz/Luv, Mo Charles, they are just laughing
> and making fun of me and not taking me seriously. Just wait till the
> revolution comes. They'll get theirs.

Promises, promises.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:00:31
From: WuzYoungOnceToo2
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6, 2:40 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net >
wrote:
>
> Ok, let's be serious here for a moment.

Aw, hell. OK.
> I don't think he WAS doing fairly
> well up to this point. Not at all. Just how the fuck can anyone assume
> that visiting aliens would be friendly?

They can't, nor is that what he did. He stated that there is no reason
to assume that they would be UNfriendly (depending on one's point of
view of course, given Peg's excitement at the possibilities you
suggested.)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 21:15:43
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"WuzYoungOnceToo2" <WuzYoungOnceToo2@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165438830.576849.156440@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 6, 2:40 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, let's be serious here for a moment.
>
> Aw, hell. OK.

>> I don't think he WAS doing fairly
>> well up to this point. Not at all. Just how the fuck can anyone assume
>> that visiting aliens would be friendly?
>
> They can't, nor is that what he did. He stated that there is no reason
> to assume that they would be UNfriendly (depending on one's point of
> view of course, given Peg's excitement at the possibilities you
> suggested.)
>

That's not how he sounded to me at all. It sounded like he was saying it is
unreasonable to anticipate their unfriendliness. I don't think so. I think
it is MUCH more logical to anticipate their unfriendliness than not. But
regardless, I'm a pretty perceptive person regarding people's character.
With just his few comments, I believe I have accurately pegged David and his
character flaw. And I'm right on that, ain't I, Dan? You agree with me and
you know it!

-Paul

Date: 06 Dec 2006 12:16:08
From: WuzYoungOnceToo2
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6, 2:10 pm, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:16:12 GMT, "Paul Popinjay"
>
> > Because they've got ray guns, you stupid mutherfucker.
>
> GWB, is that you? Not satisfied with the WMD'S that supposedly
> existed in Iraq, now you want to take on the aliens because they might
> have some? And you call me stupid. That is pretty fucking funny.

You were doing fairly well up until this point. Your utterly pointless
injection of politics aside...Paul is the king of trolls on RGP, and
I'm consistently amazed at how easily he sucks people like you in with
his obvious trolling posts. But don't feel bad. There are some who
have been here for a long time...who HAVE to know that Paul is fucking
with them...and they still just can't seem to help themselves. One can
only stand aside and shake one's head in disbelief.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:57:32
From: Susan
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

All Hail to Paul

http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html

> You were doing fairly well up until this point. Your utterly pointless
> injection of politics aside...Paul is the king of trolls on RGP, and
> I'm consistently amazed at how easily he sucks people like you in with
> his obvious trolling posts. But don't feel bad. There are some who
> have been here for a long time...who HAVE to know that Paul is fucking
> with them...and they still just can't seem to help themselves. One can
> only stand aside and shake one's head in disbelief.
>

Date: 06 Dec 2006 21:07:31
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Susan" <sdbratt48@netscape.net > wrote in message
news:l8Gdh.78$AU3.53@newsfe06.lga...

> All Hail to Paul
>
> http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html
>
>

I'm planning another trip to Home Depot today, maybe later in the afternoon.
First I'm going to grab lunch. Then I need to stop at the bank. Might get
my car washed first. I dunno.

Trip report forthcoming.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 06 Dec 2006 20:40:49
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"WuzYoungOnceToo2" <WuzYoungOnceToo2@yahoo.com > wrote in message
>
> You were doing fairly well up until this point.
>

Ok, let's be serious here for a moment. I don't think he WAS doing fairly
well up to this point. Not at all. Just how the fuck can anyone assume
that visiting aliens would be friendly? This is a pretty fucking logical
point I am trying to make. This is not a troll. What the fuck is wrong
with you people? This is one of my most important and serious posts I have
ever made on RGP. And you guys aren't taking me seriously. David has
offered zero reasons why we should assume that the aliens are mellow.
That's because there ARE NO REASONS. This has something to do with a
character flaw in David. I assure you. And I'm deadass serious.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 06 Dec 20:59:37
From: CHarrison100
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6 2006 3:40 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:

> "WuzYoungOnceToo2" wrote in message
> >
> > You were doing fairly well up until this point.
> >
>
> Ok, let's be serious here for a moment. I don't think he WAS doing fairly
> well up to this point. Not at all. Just how the fuck can anyone assume
> that visiting aliens would be friendly? This is a pretty fucking logical
> point I am trying to make. This is not a troll. What the fuck is wrong
> with you people? This is one of my most important and serious posts I have
> ever made on RGP. And you guys aren't taking me seriously. David has
> offered zero reasons why we should assume that the aliens are mellow.
> That's because there ARE NO REASONS. This has something to do with a
> character flaw in David. I assure you. And I'm deadass serious.
>
> -Paul Popinjay

This is true we have no reason to beleive that they will come with peace and
harmony. We also have no reson to beleive that they are coming to destroy us.

The only way we will find out is when it happens. Of course our actions to them
upon arrival will dictate the tone of the rest of the relationship.

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 07 Dec 2006 15:31:33
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On 6 Dec 2006 12:16:08 -0800, "WuzYoungOnceToo2"
<WuzYoungOnceToo2@yahoo.com > wrote:

>On Dec 6, 2:10 pm, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:16:12 GMT, "Paul Popinjay"
>>
>> > Because they've got ray guns, you stupid mutherfucker.
>>
>> GWB, is that you? Not satisfied with the WMD'S that supposedly
>> existed in Iraq, now you want to take on the aliens because they might
>> have some? And you call me stupid. That is pretty fucking funny.
>
>You were doing fairly well up until this point. Your utterly pointless
>injection of politics aside...Paul is the king of trolls on RGP, and
>I'm consistently amazed at how easily he sucks people like you in with
>his obvious trolling posts. But don't feel bad. There are some who
>have been here for a long time...who HAVE to know that Paul is fucking
>with them...and they still just can't seem to help themselves. One can
>only stand aside and shake one's head in disbelief.

I think I was doing fairly well, even with this post. It is, of
course, obvious that Paul is a troll; however, he really does believe
what he posted and that is scary. Yesterday, Jim Baker made the
statement that the USSR wanted to wipe the USA off the face of the
earth during the Cold War. Well, that is also a myth. As a matter of
fact, I know many russians who were led to believe that the USA, in
fact, wanted to wipe the USSR off the fact of the earth.

It is exactly the kind of thinking that Paul propogated through this
thread that leads to a degree of mistrust which ends up costing so
many lives. People, at their most basic level, all have the same
needs and desires.

When politics are left out of discussions, people, regardless of
their cultural backgrounds, are open and friendly. One day, a number
of years ago, I was playing a game of chess in a pub here in Germany.
Someone sitting a couple of tables away asked if he could join in. Of
course, we invited hiim to play. Now, according to my last name, I am
Jewish. The fact is, my father's side of the family is Jewish and my
mother's side is Southern Baptist.

The person who asked to play was Palestinian. When he found out
that I was "Jewish," he made a statement to the fact that he found it
very sad that politicians feel the need to pit different cultures
against one another. He was a great guy and we became very good
friends.

During the first gulf war, I was in Saudi Arabia. The people there
were some of the friendliest people I have ever met. Saudi Arabia is
about as strict a Muslim nation as you will find. My russian friends
were as "american" as any friends that I have ever had. Except for
the language differences, they have the same sense of humor and love
to work hard and party hard.

Now, Paul states that I have a "character flaw." Well, I have met
many, many people of different nationalities, religious backgrounds,
and we are all the same. It is these experiences which make me
believe that we can all, in fact, get along and go on to achieve great
things if we all could rise above the politics and work together.

In Paul's eyes, and probably many others here in RGP, this makes me
a bleeding heart liberal. Well, so be it. If that is my character
flaw, then it is one that I am surely glad to live with.

David

Date: 07 Dec 2006 15:47:04
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote in message
news:fp7gn2dj60gcslqv1dflec4lmjdhj8g8m2@4ax.com...

>
> In Paul's eyes, and probably many others here in RGP, this makes me
> a bleeding heart liberal. Well, so be it. If that is my character
> flaw, then it is one that I am surely glad to live with.
>
> David
>

No, in MY eyes, it makes you a stupid fucking idiot who is going to risk the
survival of the WHOLE human race on Earth by reaching out with flowers when
the aliens visit. You FOOL! You cannot equate anything about the aliens
with anything about humans. As I have stated in another post, we MUST
disable their spacecraft immediately and then intern them. We can get
whatever information we need from them because our efforts will not be
thwarted by some silly constitutional protections against torture, because
that will not apply to non-humans.

I stated that David's brief comments were indicative to me of his obvious
character flaw. This is why it is said that liberals have a mental
disorder. In the name of peace, they are ready to be duped into becoming
slaves to some evil forces. People like David, although they might mean
well, are really gullible lambs who will be devoured by wolves. That may be
noble, but it's stupid. David has NO reason to believe that the aliens will
be peaceful and mellow. How can we take a chance? Again I say, we must
FIRST blast the ever-loving shit out of these green bastards, and ask
questions later.

David's quote above is that if his being a bleeding heart liberal is a
character flaw, he says that that is something he is glad to live with. But
he's NOT going to be glad to live with that. That's my POINT! You idiot.
He's going to end up on an alien's barbeque grill and his wife is going to
be, uhh, well uhh, you know what they say about aliens.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 07 Dec 2006 10:25:59
From: Peg Smith
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote:

>He's going to end up on an alien's barbeque grill and his wife is going to
>be, uhh, well uhh, you know what they say about aliens.

Big schlongs, right?

Peg

Date: 08 Dec 2006 13:00:48
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:47:04 GMT, "Paul Popinjay"
<paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote:

>"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote in message
>news:fp7gn2dj60gcslqv1dflec4lmjdhj8g8m2@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> In Paul's eyes, and probably many others here in RGP, this makes me
>> a bleeding heart liberal. Well, so be it. If that is my character
>> flaw, then it is one that I am surely glad to live with.
>>
>> David
>>
>
>
>No, in MY eyes, it makes you a stupid fucking idiot who is going to risk the
>survival of the WHOLE human race on Earth by reaching out with flowers when
>the aliens visit. You FOOL! You cannot equate anything about the aliens
>with anything about humans. As I have stated in another post, we MUST
>disable their spacecraft immediately and then intern them. We can get
>whatever information we need from them because our efforts will not be
>thwarted by some silly constitutional protections against torture, because
>that will not apply to non-humans.
>
>I stated that David's brief comments were indicative to me of his obvious
>character flaw. This is why it is said that liberals have a mental
>disorder. In the name of peace, they are ready to be duped into becoming
>slaves to some evil forces. People like David, although they might mean
>well, are really gullible lambs who will be devoured by wolves. That may be
>noble, but it's stupid. David has NO reason to believe that the aliens will
>be peaceful and mellow. How can we take a chance? Again I say, we must
>FIRST blast the ever-loving shit out of these green bastards, and ask
>questions later.
>
>David's quote above is that if his being a bleeding heart liberal is a
>character flaw, he says that that is something he is glad to live with. But
>he's NOT going to be glad to live with that. That's my POINT! You idiot.
>He's going to end up on an alien's barbeque grill and his wife is going to
>be, uhh, well uhh, you know what they say about aliens.
>
>-Paul Popinjay

And I had so hoped that you would killfile me. Paul, I feel sorry
for you, that is all that I can add to this thread.

David

Date: 08 Dec 2006 15:36:40
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote in message
news:ltkin2hep7u310good7o1inn6vtmqgjd49@4ax.com...
>
> And I had so hoped that you would killfile me. Paul, I feel sorry
> for you, that is all that I can add to this thread.
>
> David
>

That IS all you can add to this thread. You have already been thoroughly
bitch-slapped. And not only have you been shown to be a gullible fool, but
you also exposed yourself as an intolerant homophobe in your other post
today where you made a juvenile remark equating David Hasselhof with closet
homesexuals. You have already stated your pride in being a "peace-loving
liberal", but then continue to make snide remarks about homosexuals. What a
hypocrite you are. What an intolerant hypocrite. You speak of the
possibility of advanced civilizations in other solar systems, and yet you
are still a neanderthal pent up with your hate and bigotry toward the
limp-wristed, ass-fucking, HIV-infected, faggots. I am seriously
considering killfiling you.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 08 Dec 2006 07:29:11
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

look at the bright side, there is death on other planets too

Date: 06 Dec 2006 12:08:30
From: WuzYoungOnceToo2
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6, 1:50 pm, Peg Smith <PegSmith...@aol.comnojunk > wrote:
>
> I would imagine that our women would be as foreign (and unappetizing)
> to them as other female species here are to us.

You've obviously never seen Star Trek and aren't from Oklahoma.

Date: 07 Dec 23:28:31
From: Chris in Texas
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 6 2006 2:08 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo2 wrote:

> On Dec 6, 1:50 pm, Peg Smith wrote:
> >
> > I would imagine that our women would be as foreign (and unappetizing)
> > to them as other female species here are to us.
>
> You've obviously never seen Star Trek and aren't from Oklahoma.

heh - as soon as I saw Peg's comment I was looking for someone to make a sheep
reference

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 07 Dec 2006 08:49:24
From: JohnnyYooper
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
> No, in MY eyes, it makes you a stupid fucking idiot who is going to risk the
> survival of the WHOLE human race on Earth by reaching out with flowers when
> the aliens visit. You FOOL! You cannot equate anything about the aliens
> with anything about humans. As I have stated in another post, we MUST
> disable their spacecraft immediately and then intern them. We can get
> whatever information we need from them because our efforts will not be
> thwarted by some silly constitutional protections against torture, because
> that will not apply to non-humans.
>
> I stated that David's brief comments were indicative to me of his obvious
> character flaw. This is why it is said that liberals have a mental
> disorder. In the name of peace, they are ready to be duped into becoming
> slaves to some evil forces. People like David, although they might mean
> well, are really gullible lambs who will be devoured by wolves. That may be
> noble, but it's stupid. David has NO reason to believe that the aliens will
> be peaceful and mellow. How can we take a chance? Again I say, we must
> FIRST blast the ever-loving shit out of these green bastards, and ask
> questions later.
>
> David's quote above is that if his being a bleeding heart liberal is a
> character flaw, he says that that is something he is glad to live with. But
> he's NOT going to be glad to live with that. That's my POINT! You idiot.
> He's going to end up on an alien's barbeque grill and his wife is going to
> be, uhh, well uhh, you know what they say about aliens.
>
> -Paul Popinjay

although i enjoy your lunatic ravings, "Mars Attacks" wasnt a
documentary. i believe the thinking is that any civilization that is
capable of interstellar travel would also be sophisticated enough to be
of the peaceful type. if man landed on some alien planet, do you think
we would come out with guns ablazing? no. we'd be begging for any
assistance possible for help in surviving. after all, there'd be just a
few of us and millions of them on their home turf. it wouldnt be wise
to have a war monger attitude.

Date: 07 Dec 2006 18:53:38
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"JohnnyYooper" <JohnnyYooper@gmail.com > wrote in message
>
> although i enjoy your lunatic ravings, "Mars Attacks" wasnt a
> documentary. i believe the thinking is that any civilization that is
> capable of interstellar travel would also be sophisticated enough to be
> of the peaceful type. if man landed on some alien planet, do you think
> we would come out with guns ablazing? no. we'd be begging for any
> assistance possible for help in surviving. after all, there'd be just a
> few of us and millions of them on their home turf. it wouldnt be wise
> to have a war monger attitude.
>

EXACTLY! They're going to put their best foot forward, by PRETENDING to be
nice when they first get here. Then they'll bring in more of their beings.
And more. And more. Pretty soon, there'll be millions of them! Don't you
see? Is Paul Popinjay the ONLY one here who can see through their lies?
LOOK, and listen, to what I say. We lock them up, no pussy-footin around
with these fuckers. Then, we interrogate them. We ask them a question.
And if they don't wannna talk? POP! We pull a suction cup off. And if
they still don't talk? POP POP POP! We pull THREE suction cups off.

And if that fails, remember, President Bush can send them to Uzbekistan.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 07 Dec 18:23:31
From: CHarrison100
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 7 2006 11:49 AM, JohnnyYooper wrote:

> Paul Popinjay wrote:
> >
> > No, in MY eyes, it makes you a stupid fucking idiot who is going to risk the
> > survival of the WHOLE human race on Earth by reaching out with flowers when
> > the aliens visit. You FOOL! You cannot equate anything about the aliens
> > with anything about humans. As I have stated in another post, we MUST
> > disable their spacecraft immediately and then intern them. We can get
> > whatever information we need from them because our efforts will not be
> > thwarted by some silly constitutional protections against torture, because
> > that will not apply to non-humans.
> >
> > I stated that David's brief comments were indicative to me of his obvious
> > character flaw. This is why it is said that liberals have a mental
> > disorder. In the name of peace, they are ready to be duped into becoming
> > slaves to some evil forces. People like David, although they might mean
> > well, are really gullible lambs who will be devoured by wolves. That may be
> > noble, but it's stupid. David has NO reason to believe that the aliens will
> > be peaceful and mellow. How can we take a chance? Again I say, we must
> > FIRST blast the ever-loving shit out of these green bastards, and ask
> > questions later.
> >
> > David's quote above is that if his being a bleeding heart liberal is a
> > character flaw, he says that that is something he is glad to live with. But
> > he's NOT going to be glad to live with that. That's my POINT! You idiot.
> > He's going to end up on an alien's barbeque grill and his wife is going to
> > be, uhh, well uhh, you know what they say about aliens.
> >
> > -Paul Popinjay
>
> although i enjoy your lunatic ravings, "Mars Attacks" wasnt a
> documentary. i believe the thinking is that any civilization that is
> capable of interstellar travel would also be sophisticated enough to be
> of the peaceful type. if man landed on some alien planet, do you think
> we would come out with guns ablazing? no. we'd be begging for any
> assistance possible for help in surviving. after all, there'd be just a
> few of us and millions of them on their home turf. it wouldnt be wise
> to have a war monger attitude.

But isn't that who the USA started? Everyone left their home soil went to the
new world. Got help in learning how to survive. Then slaughtered as many of them
as you could if they didn't do what you wanted?

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 07 Dec 2006 20:24:10
From: Mark-T
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

William Coleman (yomamashiva) wrote:

> : > Hawking's argument here is really weak --
> : > "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a
> : > good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."

....

> But that isn't what Professor Hawking is arguing. He is arguing that, from
> the one instance of life developing on Earth, we can conclude that there is
> a good chance that life will develop wherever conditions are suitable. From
> one data point, there is simply no way of determining whether an observed
> event is a statistical freak or a commonplace occurrence.

I have to second the nut job here, uncomfortable
though it makes me...

No one knows whether life exists elsewhere. But
more to the point, no one knows **the chance** that
life exists elsewhere. All the professors and experts
and knowitalls doing their 'educated guesses', attaching
numbers to this probability, are blowing smoke. Because
no one knows, and their windbaggery carries zero information.

You might as well listen to a dog bark, that would be
as informative.

Mark

Date: 07 Dec 2006 20:20:32
From: quietguy
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

William Coleman wrote:

> Was there a placard on Voyager? I think you are confusing Voyager with
> Pioneer.
>
Voyager 10 carried the message. It was a 12-inch gold disk with the
map etched on its surface along with outline drawings of a man and a
woman, as well as a key to decoding the digital data on the disk:
images of scenes on Earth, aural recordings of greetings in many
languages, whale songs and many kinds of music.
>
> You really don't know anything at all, do you?
>
I know that the original Patriot system had about a ninety-percent
intercept rate; the improved system's rate is classified but probably
at least as good. To expect any race of aliens to do less than a
perfect job of wiping out our best weapons as easily as we wipe out
ants in the baseboards strikes me as ridiculuous. We wouldn't even be
able to start defending ourselves.
>
> Might, might, might, might. I believe that Carl Sagan, whom you
> characterize as a fool, has speculated that detonation of nuclear weapons on
> Earth might sufficiently concern any aliens in our immediate neighborhood
> who detected these detonations that they would pay us a visit to find out
> what the fuck was going on.
>
This whole thread is "might, might, might" -- pure speculation clearly
labeled and taken as such. As for nuclear detonations possibly
attracting attention, the scenarios we're discussing are improbable
enough to make that the least important reason to avoid blowing each
other up.

Date: 08 Dec 2006 12:57:58
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On 7 Dec 2006 20:20:32 -0800, "quietguy" <grnordgarden@cox.net > wrote:

>
>William Coleman wrote:
>
>> Was there a placard on Voyager? I think you are confusing Voyager with
>> Pioneer.
>>
>Voyager 10 carried the message. It was a 12-inch gold disk with the
>map etched on its surface along with outline drawings of a man and a
>woman, as well as a key to decoding the digital data on the disk:
>images of scenes on Earth, aural recordings of greetings in many
>languages, whale songs and many kinds of music.

Pioneer carried the placard. There is no Voyager 10, there are 1
and 2. What do you think that chances are that some alien race,
assuming that interstellar travel could be made remotely feasible,
would actually find the satellite? Forget about the needle in a
haystack analogy--it would be more like trying to find a specific
subatomic particle in a soalr system.

David

Date: 09 Dec 2006 00:52:32
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"quietguy" <grnordgarden@cox.net > wrote in message
news:1165551632.169347.85960@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
:
: William Coleman wrote:
:
: > Was there a placard on Voyager? I think you are confusing Voyager with
: > Pioneer.
: >
: Voyager 10 carried the message.

What Voyager is that? I have only heard of Voyager 1 and Voyager 2.

: It was a 12-inch gold disk with the
: map etched on its surface along with outline drawings of a man and a
: woman, as well as a key to decoding the digital data on the disk:
: images of scenes on Earth, aural recordings of greetings in many
: languages, whale songs and many kinds of music.

In other words, there were no placards on the Voyager spacecraft, just as I
suggested.

: > You really don't know anything at all, do you?
: >
: I know that the original Patriot system had about a ninety-percent
: intercept rate;

Like I said, you don't know anything at all. That is just another lie from
the Bush Crime Family. I bet you think we are winning the war in Iraq also.
I bet you think the insurgency is in its last throes.

Here is the truth about the Patriot Missile --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

"The U.S. Army claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and
50% in Israel. Those claims were eventually scaled back to 70% and 40%.
However, when President George H. W. Bush traveled to Raytheon's Patriot
manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts during the Gulf War, he
declared, the "Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!" [1].
The President's claimed success rate was thus over 97% during the war.

"On April 7, 1992 Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, and Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University testified before a
House Committee stating that, according to their independent analyses, the
Patriot system had a success rate of below 10%, and perhaps even a zero
success rate."

Apparently the latest version of the Patriot was spectacularly successful
during the invasion of Iraq. Whether these reports are accurate remains to
be seen.

There is another minor detail regarding using the Patriot missile to shoot
down ICBMs carrying high-megatonnage nuclear warheads. The Patriot has an
altitude limit of about 10 miles and a range of about 30 miles. An airburst
detonation at 10 miles altitude would have devastating consequences.

Our actual ABM missile systems which supposedly can intercept ICBMs high in
their trajectory and hundreds of miles from their target have been dismal
failures so far.

Your original statement is preposterous and reveals a profound ignorance of
this subject --

"As for nukes, even a race as primitive as ours is already capable of doing
a pretty good job of destroying nukes enroute and their delivery systems
before their use."

: the improved system's rate is classified but probably
: at least as good. To expect any race of aliens to do less than a
: perfect job of wiping out our best weapons as easily as we wipe out
: ants in the baseboards strikes me as ridiculuous.

Why is it ridiculous??? Just because they are advanced in propulsion
technology doesn't mean they are advanced in weapons technology. Maybe they
are a species which put aggression and wars behind them millions of years
ago and has no experience whatsoever dealing with hostile aggressive species
like homo sapiens. You are extremely glib, but you do not have a clue.

: We wouldn't even be able to start defending ourselves.

Like I said, everything you post is sheer nonsense.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 07 Dec 2006 19:21:14
From: quietguy
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

William Coleman wrote:
> Gee, you think the fact that Voyager includes a detailed star map showing
> the exact location of our solar system might give them a clue anyway?
>
> As usual, you post complete nonsense. You seriously think it would be
> possible, I don't care how advanced their technology is, to design a
> spacecraft that could survive a direct hit from a 100 megaton nuclear
> weapon? I don't think so. Go back to your cave.

Reread my post: I wrote that they shouldn't have included the placard
in the first place. A trajectory change once well away from our solar
system would have provided additional safety. As for nukes, even we
can already do pretty well at intercepting missiles as well as
destroying their launchers before they can be used. Child's play for
interstellar voyagers, I think.

Date: 09 Dec 2006 01:10:38
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"quietguy" <grnordgarden@cox.net > wrote in message
news:1165545345.461322.312390@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
:
: William Coleman wrote:
: > Gee, you think the fact that Voyager includes a detailed star map
showing
: > the exact location of our solar system might give them a clue anyway?
: >
: > As usual, you post complete nonsense. You seriously think it would be
: > possible, I don't care how advanced their technology is, to design a
: > spacecraft that could survive a direct hit from a 100 megaton nuclear
: > weapon? I don't think so. Go back to your cave.
:
: Reread my post: I wrote that they shouldn't have included the placard
: in the first place. A trajectory change once well away from our solar
: system would have provided additional safety. As for nukes, even we
: can already do pretty well at intercepting missiles as well as
: destroying their launchers before they can be used.

Here is the truth about the Patriot Missile --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

"The U.S. Army claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and
50% in Israel. Those claims were eventually scaled back to 70% and 40%.
However, when President George H. W. Bush traveled to Raytheon's Patriot
manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts during the Gulf War, he
declared, the "Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!" [1].
The President's claimed success rate was thus over 97% during the war.

"On April 7, 1992 Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, and Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University testified before a
House Committee stating that, according to their independent analyses, the
Patriot system had a success rate of below 10%, and perhaps even a zero
success rate."

Apparently the latest version of the Patriot was spectacularly successful
during the invasion of Iraq. Whether these reports are accurate remains to
be seen.

There is another minor detail regarding using the Patriot missile to shoot
down ICBMs carrying high-megatonnage nuclear warheads. The Patriot has an
altitude limit of about 10 miles and a range of about 30 miles. An airburst
detonation at 10 miles altitude would have devastating consequences.

Our actual ABM missile systems which supposedly can intercept ICBMs high in
their trajectory and hundreds of miles from their target have been dismal
failures so far.

Your original statement is preposterous and reveals a profound ignorance of
this subject --

"As for nukes, even we can already do pretty well at intercepting missiles
as well as destroying their launchers before they can be used."

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 07 Dec 2006 18:45:38
From: quietguy
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

William Coleman wrote:
> Gee, you think the fact that Voyager includes a detailed star map showing
> the exact location of our solar system might give them a clue anyway?
>
> As usual, you post complete nonsense. You seriously think it would be
> possible, I don't care how advanced their technology is, to design a
> spacecraft that could survive a direct hit from a 100 megaton nuclear
> weapon? I don't think so. Go back to your cave.

Reread my post. I wrote that they ought not to have attached the
placard in the first place. A trajectory change once the craft was
well away from our solar system would have provided additional safety
for us. As for nukes, even a race as primitive as ours is already
capable of doing a pretty good job of destroying nukes enroute and
their delivery systems before their use. For interstellar voyagers
millions of years ahead of us technologically, wiping out all our
weapons might literally be child's play -- and by means we can't even
imagine. Remember something else Arthur Clarke has written: "Any
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Date: 08 Dec 2006 03:06:24
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"quietguy" <grnordgarden@cox.net > wrote in message
news:1165545937.990039.43590@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
:
: William Coleman wrote:
: > Gee, you think the fact that Voyager includes a detailed star map
showing
: > the exact location of our solar system might give them a clue anyway?

: > As usual, you post complete nonsense. You seriously think it would be
: > possible, I don't care how advanced their technology is, to design a
: > spacecraft that could survive a direct hit from a 100 megaton nuclear
: > weapon? I don't think so. Go back to your cave.
:
: Reread my post. I wrote that they ought not to have attached the
: placard in the first place.

Was there a placard on Voyager? I think you are confusing Voyager with
Pioneer.

: A trajectory change once the craft was
: well away from our solar system would have provided additional safety
: for us. As for nukes, even a race as primitive as ours is already
: capable of doing a pretty good job of destroying nukes enroute and
: their delivery systems before their use.

You really don't know anything at all, do you?

: For interstellar voyagers
: millions of years ahead of us technologically, wiping out all our
: weapons might literally be child's play --

Might, might, might, might. I believe that Carl Sagan, whom you
characterize as a fool, has speculated that detonation of nuclear weapons on
Earth might sufficiently concern any aliens in our immediate neighborhood
who detected these detonations that they would pay us a visit to find out
what the fuck was going on.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 07 Dec 2006 20:59:29
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 7 2006 8:06 PM, William Coleman wrote:

> "quietguy" <grnordgarden@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1165545937.990039.43590@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> :
> : William Coleman wrote:
> : > Gee, you think the fact that Voyager includes a detailed star map
> showing
> : > the exact location of our solar system might give them a clue anyway?
>
> : > As usual, you post complete nonsense. You seriously think it would be
> : > possible, I don't care how advanced their technology is, to design a
> : > spacecraft that could survive a direct hit from a 100 megaton nuclear
> : > weapon? I don't think so. Go back to your cave.
> :
> : Reread my post. I wrote that they ought not to have attached the
> : placard in the first place.
>
> Was there a placard on Voyager? I think you are confusing Voyager with
> Pioneer.

There was. Explaining who we are, and where we come from.

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

Date: 09 Dec 2006 01:07:04
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

Date: 07 Dec 2006 17:37:29
From: JohnnyYooper
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

quietguy wrote:
> I'm amazed that this thread has gotten this far without anyone
> mentioning what Arthur C. Clarke pointed out nearly fifty years ago:
> that H. G. Wells's "War of the Worlds" scenario is preposterous. For
> warfare to be possible the societies in contact must be at nearly
> identical levels of technological advancement; just the few centuries'
> worth of difference that have arisen among societies here on Earth have
> produced horrifically one-sided bloodbaths. The millions or billions
> of years' difference that would almost certainly exist between us and
> any visitors (and surely in their favor, if they've figured out
> interstellar travel) would make any aggressive action extermination
> (ours), not warfare.
>
> Some have argued that any more advanced race must be more peace-loving
> than ours. Not necessarily. Pacifist species would be likely to be
> stay-at-homes; societies which explore tend to be quite energetic, with
> aggressive tendencies. Extraterrestrial beings may also lack emotions
> comparable to ours, which are based on our sexual mode of reproduction
> and prolonged and intensive period of child-rearing; egg-layers or
> asexual reproducers would probably have motives difficult or impossible
> for us to comprehend. If they wanted the Earth they might simply
> sterilize it and move in, much as we fumigate termite-infested houses
> we've bought -- and perhaps with no more moral compunctions than we
> have in doing so.
>
> Fears of being enslaved by aliens also seem unfounded. A society
> capable of constructing the machines and harnessing the titanic
> energies needed for interstellar flight wouldn't need muscle-power to
> get their fetching and carrying done. That we would be hunted for
> sport is far more likely.
>
> Alien visitors could be friends or exterminators -- and I think the two
> are of the same order of magnitude of likelihood -- but not enemies.
> We wouldn't be capable of any significant resistance. If they weren't
> inclined to keep our planet as a nature preserve, then we'd be goners.
>
> I do agree with Paul P. about the need to keep our guard up, though.
> But since we'd be so impotent against any aggressor our best course of
> action is to shut up, stay at home and hope no one notices this solar
> system. We've already made mistakes in that regard: Sagan and those
> other fools on the Voyager project ought to have been kept from
> attaching that map-placard. The spacecraft's trajectory alone is
> worrisome -- a dead giveaway of our location. They ought to have made
> provisions for a significant lateral burn a decade or more out from
> Earth to hide the craft's point of origin.

yep. i think you make sense, quiet guy. doesnt look too promising for
the home team. you better forget about fighting them, Paul. instead,
get ready to suck some alien dick. or else.

Date: 07 Dec 2006 17:21:47
From: quietguy
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

I'm amazed that this thread has gotten this far without anyone
mentioning what Arthur C. Clarke pointed out nearly fifty years ago:
that H. G. Wells's "War of the Worlds" scenario is preposterous. For
warfare to be possible the societies in contact must be at nearly
identical levels of technological advancement; just the few centuries'
worth of difference that have arisen among societies here on Earth have
produced horrifically one-sided bloodbaths. The millions or billions
of years' difference that would almost certainly exist between us and
any visitors (and surely in their favor, if they've figured out
interstellar travel) would make any aggressive action extermination
(ours), not warfare.

Some have argued that any more advanced race must be more peace-loving
than ours. Not necessarily. Pacifist species would be likely to be
stay-at-homes; societies which explore tend to be quite energetic, with
aggressive tendencies. Extraterrestrial beings may also lack emotions
comparable to ours, which are based on our sexual mode of reproduction
and prolonged and intensive period of child-rearing; egg-layers or
asexual reproducers would probably have motives difficult or impossible
for us to comprehend. If they wanted the Earth they might simply
sterilize it and move in, much as we fumigate termite-infested houses
we've bought -- and perhaps with no more moral compunctions than we
have in doing so.

Fears of being enslaved by aliens also seem unfounded. A society
capable of constructing the machines and harnessing the titanic
energies needed for interstellar flight wouldn't need muscle-power to
get their fetching and carrying done. That we would be hunted for
sport is far more likely.

Alien visitors could be friends or exterminators -- and I think the two
are of the same order of magnitude of likelihood -- but not enemies.
We wouldn't be capable of any significant resistance. If they weren't
inclined to keep our planet as a nature preserve, then we'd be goners.

I do agree with Paul P. about the need to keep our guard up, though.
But since we'd be so impotent against any aggressor our best course of
action is to shut up, stay at home and hope no one notices this solar
system. We've already made mistakes in that regard: Sagan and those
other fools on the Voyager project ought to have been kept from
attaching that map-placard. The spacecraft's trajectory alone is
worrisome -- a dead giveaway of our location. They ought to have made
provisions for a significant lateral burn a decade or more out from
Earth to hide the craft's point of origin.

Date: 08 Dec 2006 02:42:59
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"quietguy" <grnordgarden@cox.net > wrote in message
news:1165540907.394493.91230@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
: I'm amazed that this thread has gotten this far without anyone
: mentioning what Arthur C. Clarke pointed out nearly fifty years ago:
: that H. G. Wells's "War of the Worlds" scenario is preposterous. For
: warfare to be possible the societies in contact must be at nearly
: identical levels of technological advancement; just the few centuries'
: worth of difference that have arisen among societies here on Earth have
: produced horrifically one-sided bloodbaths. The millions or billions
: of years' difference that would almost certainly exist between us and
: any visitors (and surely in their favor, if they've figured out
: interstellar travel) would make any aggressive action extermination
: (ours), not warfare.
:
: Some have argued that any more advanced race must be more peace-loving
: than ours. Not necessarily. Pacifist species would be likely to be
: stay-at-homes; societies which explore tend to be quite energetic, with
: aggressive tendencies. Extraterrestrial beings may also lack emotions
: comparable to ours, which are based on our sexual mode of reproduction
: and prolonged and intensive period of child-rearing; egg-layers or
: asexual reproducers would probably have motives difficult or impossible
: for us to comprehend. If they wanted the Earth they might simply
: sterilize it and move in, much as we fumigate termite-infested houses
: we've bought -- and perhaps with no more moral compunctions than we
: have in doing so.
:
: Fears of being enslaved by aliens also seem unfounded. A society
: capable of constructing the machines and harnessing the titanic
: energies needed for interstellar flight wouldn't need muscle-power to
: get their fetching and carrying done. That we would be hunted for
: sport is far more likely.
:
: Alien visitors could be friends or exterminators -- and I think the two
: are of the same order of magnitude of likelihood -- but not enemies.
: We wouldn't be capable of any significant resistance. If they weren't
: inclined to keep our planet as a nature preserve, then we'd be goners.
:
: I do agree with Paul P. about the need to keep our guard up, though.
: But since we'd be so impotent against any aggressor our best course of
: action is to shut up, stay at home and hope no one notices this solar
: system. We've already made mistakes in that regard: Sagan and those
: other fools on the Voyager project ought to have been kept from
: attaching that map-placard.

Did Voyager have a placard? I thought that was Pioneer.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 08 Dec 2006 02:04:46
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"quietguy" <grnordgarden@cox.net > wrote in message
news:1165540907.394493.91230@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
: I'm amazed that this thread has gotten this far without anyone
: mentioning what Arthur C. Clarke pointed out nearly fifty years ago:
: that H. G. Wells's "War of the Worlds" scenario is preposterous. For
: warfare to be possible the societies in contact must be at nearly
: identical levels of technological advancement; just the few centuries'
: worth of difference that have arisen among societies here on Earth have
: produced horrifically one-sided bloodbaths. The millions or billions
: of years' difference that would almost certainly exist between us and
: any visitors (and surely in their favor, if they've figured out
: interstellar travel) would make any aggressive action extermination
: (ours), not warfare.
:
: Some have argued that any more advanced race must be more peace-loving
: than ours. Not necessarily. Pacifist species would be likely to be
: stay-at-homes; societies which explore tend to be quite energetic, with
: aggressive tendencies. Extraterrestrial beings may also lack emotions
: comparable to ours, which are based on our sexual mode of reproduction
: and prolonged and intensive period of child-rearing; egg-layers or
: asexual reproducers would probably have motives difficult or impossible
: for us to comprehend. If they wanted the Earth they might simply
: sterilize it and move in, much as we fumigate termite-infested houses
: we've bought -- and perhaps with no more moral compunctions than we
: have in doing so.
:
: Fears of being enslaved by aliens also seem unfounded. A society
: capable of constructing the machines and harnessing the titanic
: energies needed for interstellar flight wouldn't need muscle-power to
: get their fetching and carrying done. That we would be hunted for
: sport is far more likely.
:
: Alien visitors could be friends or exterminators -- and I think the two
: are of the same order of magnitude of likelihood -- but not enemies.
: We wouldn't be capable of any significant resistance. If they weren't
: inclined to keep our planet as a nature preserve, then we'd be goners.
:
: I do agree with Paul P. about the need to keep our guard up, though.
: But since we'd be so impotent against any aggressor our best course of
: action is to shut up, stay at home and hope no one notices this solar
: system. We've already made mistakes in that regard: Sagan and those
: other fools on the Voyager project ought to have been kept from
: attaching that map-placard. The spacecraft's trajectory alone is
: worrisome -- a dead giveaway of our location. They ought to have made
: provisions for a significant lateral burn a decade or more out from
: Earth to hide the craft's point of origin.

Gee, you think the fact that Voyager includes a detailed star map showing
the exact location of our solar system might give them a clue anyway?

As usual, you post complete nonsense. You seriously think it would be
possible, I don't care how advanced their technology is, to design a
spacecraft that could survive a direct hit from a 100 megaton nuclear
weapon? I don't think so. Go back to your cave.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 08 Dec 2006 02:17:37
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

LOL. I just noticed that Voyager includes a recording of "Johnny B. Goode"
by Chuck Berry. How cool would it be if the first thing the aliens said,
once the language barrier was overcome, was --

Take us to Chuck Berry.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 07 Dec 2006 17:04:36
From: JohnnyYooper
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
> On Dec 7, 10:49 am, "JohnnyYooper" <JohnnyYoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > although i enjoy your lunatic ravings, "Mars Attacks" wasnt a
> > documentary. i believe the thinking is that any civilization that is
> > capable of interstellar travel would also be sophisticated enough to be
> > of the peaceful type.
>
> That's incredibly baseless and naive thinking. Do you have any idea
> how many of our most sophisticated technical advances have arisen from
> military research and/or funding? Do you know the history of the
> electronic computer?

it doesnt follow that these technical advances will be used in an
agressive military manner. maybe we'll share our Tang with them.

Date: 07 Dec 2006 16:36:52
From: Omaha8_Beach
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

Paul Popinjay wrote:
> Oh? You think they don't have the same kind of problems that we humans do
> in this regard? Do you think there is no theft on their planet? Do you
> think there is no envy on their planet? Do you think there is no murder on
> their planet?
>
> So, there's been a few of you people here who have expressed the same kind
> of thinking. Namely, that the chances are that any visiting aliens would be
> so advanced that they wouldn't have any of the same kind of problems or
> characteristics as us humans. That assumes that not having those same kinds
> of problems and characteristics is an expected result of becoming advanced.
> And you people think I am unrealistic? No, YOU are unrealistic. No matter
> how advanced we ever become, there's still going to be problems. So it is
> completely irrational for anyone to assume that because the aliens are more
> advanced than we are, that they will be mellow and come in peace.

The thinking isn't that because they are so advanced they won't have
those problems, rather, that to get that far, you have to overcome
those types of problems for civilization to continue. Things like
envy, greed, etc. could be argued to be basic instincts like hunger
that can't be eliminated 100% (and possibly the situation would be the
same in other intelligent life forms). But killing others in the name
of religion certainly isn't a basic instinct, that must be taught. And
it is also something that can be untaught. In case you didn't notice,
the September 11th attacks on our country were in part motivated by
religion. That attack killed about 3,000 innocent people. The same
group responsible for those attacks has also been instructed that it
can use nuclear weapons (if they obtain them) against the U.S., as long
as it caps the deaths from such an attack at 10 million. That is what
is IRRATIONAL.

Until that type of thinking is eliminated, there will always be a
certain risk that our civilation will cease to exist, or at the very
least, be blasted back 100,000 years. Right now we aren't capable of
interstellar travel. Maybe it will be possible in another 100, 200, or
maybe 1,000 years. But civilization has to survive that long and there
are certain non-inherited emotions/beliefs that some possess that is a
danger to our civilization. And it may not take a million people with
that type of irrational thinking to do a lot of damage, just a few
hundred individuals with the right materials could do it. Fortunately
the materials aren't easy to get and the time to do it is substantial
but I don't see anything right now that is making it any harder for
them.

As for your militant attitude toward alien visitors, certainly there
may be certain situations where locking them up and interrogating them
will have some value, but I think this is very unlikely to be any
benefit. In my opinion our best defense against malicious visitors (at
least at this point in time) is also our greatest danger - we have the
capability of making this planet very inhospitable for other life
forms, including humans, of course.

Ken

Ken

Date: 07 Dec 2006 14:39:06
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 7, 10:49 am, "JohnnyYooper" <JohnnyYoo...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> although i enjoy your lunatic ravings, "Mars Attacks" wasnt a
> documentary. i believe the thinking is that any civilization that is
> capable of interstellar travel would also be sophisticated enough to be
> of the peaceful type.

That's incredibly baseless and naive thinking. Do you have any idea
how many of our most sophisticated technical advances have arisen from
military research and/or funding? Do you know the history of the
electronic computer?

> if man landed on some alien planet, do you think
> we would come out with guns ablazing?

That depends. Do the aliens taste like chicken?

Date: 07 Dec 2006 14:34:45
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 7, 8:31 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
>
> I think I was doing fairly well, even with this post. It is, of
> course, obvious that Paul is a troll; however, he really does believe
> what he posted and that is scary.

Congratulations. You've just set a new speed record for
self-contradiction.

Date: 07 Dec 2006 22:48:37
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165530884.995344.300110@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 7, 8:31 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>> I think I was doing fairly well, even with this post. It is, of
>> course, obvious that Paul is a troll; however, he really does believe
>> what he posted and that is scary.
>
> Congratulations. You've just set a new speed record for
> self-contradiction.
>

David is contradicting himself. He is wrong on the first part, I am not
trolling. He is right on the second part, I do believe what I say. And
what I say is that David is a pussy. And his kind of philosophy will cause
all of mankind to become slave labor for the aliens. I am completely
serious.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 07 Dec 2006 23:12:54
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:9T0eh.50603$Fg.23186@tornado.socal.rr.com...
:
: "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message
: news:1165530884.995344.300110@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: > On Dec 7, 8:31 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de> wrote:
: >>
: >> I think I was doing fairly well, even with this post. It is, of
: >> course, obvious that Paul is a troll; however, he really does believe
: >> what he posted and that is scary.
: >
: > Congratulations. You've just set a new speed record for
: > self-contradiction.
: >
:
: David is contradicting himself. He is wrong on the first part, I am not
: trolling. He is right on the second part, I do believe what I say. And
: what I say is that David is a pussy. And his kind of philosophy will
cause
: all of mankind to become slave labor for the aliens. I am completely
: serious.

Hey, Paul. What if all the aliens look like Jessica Simpson and are
nymphomaniacs? Would that change your attitude about being a slave?

These titties are unenhanced --

http://www.hissandpop.com/celebrities/s/jessicasimpson/photos/jessica-simpson-006.jpg

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 08 Dec 2006 13:02:13
From: David
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:12:54 GMT, "William Coleman"
<ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote:

>
>"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:9T0eh.50603$Fg.23186@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>:
>: "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>: news:1165530884.995344.300110@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>: > On Dec 7, 8:31 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>: >>
>: >> I think I was doing fairly well, even with this post. It is, of
>: >> course, obvious that Paul is a troll; however, he really does believe
>: >> what he posted and that is scary.
>: >
>: > Congratulations. You've just set a new speed record for
>: > self-contradiction.
>: >
>:
>: David is contradicting himself. He is wrong on the first part, I am not
>: trolling. He is right on the second part, I do believe what I say. And
>: what I say is that David is a pussy. And his kind of philosophy will
>cause
>: all of mankind to become slave labor for the aliens. I am completely
>: serious.
>
>
>Hey, Paul. What if all the aliens look like Jessica Simpson and are
>nymphomaniacs? Would that change your attitude about being a slave?

Paul would rather hope they all look like David Hasselhof. Paul is
another "won't come out of the closet, republican homosexual."

David

Date: 07 Dec 2006 12:21:47
From: Omaha8_Beach
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

JohnnyYooper wrote:
> although i enjoy your lunatic ravings, "Mars Attacks" wasnt a
> documentary. i believe the thinking is that any civilization that is
> capable of interstellar travel would also be sophisticated enough to be
> of the peaceful type. if man landed on some alien planet, do you think
> we would come out with guns ablazing? no. we'd be begging for any
> assistance possible for help in surviving. after all, there'd be just a
> few of us and millions of them on their home turf. it wouldnt be wise
> to have a war monger attitude.

I agree, I think the mostly likely case would be that any civilization
capable of interstellar travel and visiting our planet would have
already gotten past the problems caused by politics, religion, etc. In
any event, I don't think it would be a good idea to imprison any
visitors unless absolutely necessary. For a civilization so advanced,
for all we know they could have some type of remote viewing through the
eyes of their explorer, they maybe even have the capability of
transmitting all of the sensations experienced by their visitor to an
observer on one of their ships thousands if not millions of miles away.
I don't think they would be very happy to find out how we greeted
their visitors from another planet.

Ken

Date: 07 Dec 2006 22:09:14
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Omaha8_Beach" <Omaha8_Beach@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165522906.900900.106460@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> I agree, I think the mostly likely case would be that any civilization
> capable of interstellar travel and visiting our planet would have
> already gotten past the problems caused by politics, religion, etc.

Oh? You think they don't have the same kind of problems that we humans do
in this regard? Do you think there is no theft on their planet? Do you
think there is no envy on their planet? Do you think there is no murder on
their planet?

So, there's been a few of you people here who have expressed the same kind
of thinking. Namely, that the chances are that any visiting aliens would be
so advanced that they wouldn't have any of the same kind of problems or
characteristics as us humans. That assumes that not having those same kinds
of problems and characteristics is an expected result of becoming advanced.
And you people think I am unrealistic? No, YOU are unrealistic. No matter
how advanced we ever become, there's still going to be problems. So it is
completely irrational for anyone to assume that because the aliens are more
advanced than we are, that they will be mellow and come in peace.

Anyway, is it WORTH the chance? Even if there is only a 10% chance that
Paul Popinjay is correct when he says that the aliens are evil and that they
come to enslave us, yet a 90% chance that you more trusting souls are
correct, is it really worth the chance? If I am right, then you just sold
us out. It's going to mean the end of our civilization, or rather more
likely they will colonize us like ants and enslave us to labor for them. Is
that what you people want to risk? You people like David? Like Johnny
Yooper? Like Omaha8_Beach?

> In
> any event, I don't think it would be a good idea to imprison any
> visitors unless absolutely necessary. For a civilization so advanced,
> for all we know they could have some type of remote viewing through the
> eyes of their explorer, they maybe even have the capability of
> transmitting all of the sensations experienced by their visitor to an
> observer on one of their ships thousands if not millions of miles away.
> I don't think they would be very happy to find out how we greeted
> their visitors from another planet.
>

This is the politics of appeasement. You say we should not do what's in our
best interest because it mind offend the aliens. You're going to get us all
killed with that kind of thinking. We need to become the most militarily
advanced planet and tell those green mutherfuckers TO COME GET SOME!

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 07 Dec 2006 22:17:35
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:ei0eh.65725$si3.49615@tornado.socal.rr.com...
: "Omaha8_Beach" <Omaha8_Beach@yahoo.com > wrote in message
: news:1165522906.900900.106460@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:
:
: >
: > I agree, I think the mostly likely case would be that any civilization
: > capable of interstellar travel and visiting our planet would have
: > already gotten past the problems caused by politics, religion, etc.
:
: Oh? You think they don't have the same kind of problems that we humans do
: in this regard? Do you think there is no theft on their planet? Do you
: think there is no envy on their planet? Do you think there is no murder
on
: their planet?
:
: So, there's been a few of you people here who have expressed the same kind
: of thinking. Namely, that the chances are that any visiting aliens would
be
: so advanced that they wouldn't have any of the same kind of problems or
: characteristics as us humans. That assumes that not having those same
kinds
: of problems and characteristics is an expected result of becoming
advanced.
: And you people think I am unrealistic? No, YOU are unrealistic. No
matter
: how advanced we ever become, there's still going to be problems. So it is
: completely irrational for anyone to assume that because the aliens are
more
: advanced than we are, that they will be mellow and come in peace.
:
: Anyway, is it WORTH the chance? Even if there is only a 10% chance that
: Paul Popinjay is correct when he says that the aliens are evil and that
they
: come to enslave us, yet a 90% chance that you more trusting souls are
: correct, is it really worth the chance? If I am right, then you just sold
: us out. It's going to mean the end of our civilization, or rather more
: likely they will colonize us like ants and enslave us to labor for them.
Is
: that what you people want to risk? You people like David? Like Johnny
: Yooper? Like Omaha8_Beach?
:
:
: > In
: > any event, I don't think it would be a good idea to imprison any
: > visitors unless absolutely necessary. For a civilization so advanced,
: > for all we know they could have some type of remote viewing through the
: > eyes of their explorer, they maybe even have the capability of
: > transmitting all of the sensations experienced by their visitor to an
: > observer on one of their ships thousands if not millions of miles away.
: > I don't think they would be very happy to find out how we greeted
: > their visitors from another planet.
: >
:
:
: This is the politics of appeasement. You say we should not do what's in
our
: best interest because it mind offend the aliens. You're going to get us
all
: killed with that kind of thinking. We need to become the most militarily
: advanced planet and tell those green mutherfuckers TO COME GET SOME!

Hey, Paul. Give it a fucking rest already.

William Coleman (ramashiva)

Date: 07 Dec 2006 23:34:40
From: beerboy
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

Date: 07 Dec 2006 22:29:01
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:3q0eh.7843
>
> Hey, Paul. Give it a fucking rest already.
>

Fine. Let's put this thread to rest now. But I was right, and David was
wrong.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 08 Dec 2006 12:04:03
From: quietguy
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

David wrote:
> Pioneer carried the placard. There is no Voyager 10, there are 1
> and 2. What do you think that chances are that some alien race,
> assuming that interstellar travel could be made remotely feasible,
> would actually find the satellite? Forget about the needle in a
> haystack analogy--it would be more like trying to find a specific
> subatomic particle in a soalr system.

True. I should have looked it up instead of going from memory. I'm
getting old; I'm starting to fart a lot and forget things.

As for anyone finding Pioneer 10, I don't think we should underestimate
the capabilities of beings with a million- or billion-year head start
on us. Better safe than sorry.

Date: 08 Dec 2006 09:36:51
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 8, 6:00 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de > wrote:
>
> And I had so hoped that you would killfile me. Paul, I feel sorry
> for you, that is all that I can add to this thread.

For someone pretending to be an intellectual you really are a gullible
twit.

Date: 08 Dec 2006 18:01:36
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165599411.586377.203300@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 8, 6:00 am, David <dgold1...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>> And I had so hoped that you would killfile me. Paul, I feel sorry
>> for you, that is all that I can add to this thread.
>
> For someone pretending to be an intellectual you really are a gullible
> twit.
>

How do you know he's just pretending? He might really be one.

Date: 08 Dec 2006 09:02:24
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 7, 7:04 pm, "JohnnyYooper" <JohnnyYoo...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> it doesnt follow that these technical advances will be used in an
> agressive military manner. maybe we'll share our Tang with them.

Then it's a good think I wasn't arguing that. I was pointing out the
fallacy in your "they'd have to be beings of a peaceful nature"
assertion.

Date: 08 Dec 2006 17:52:02
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

"WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165597344.086023.14640@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 7, 7:04 pm, "JohnnyYooper" <JohnnyYoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> it doesnt follow that these technical advances will be used in an
>> agressive military manner. maybe we'll share our Tang with them.
>
> Then it's a good think I wasn't arguing that. I was pointing out the
> fallacy in your "they'd have to be beings of a peaceful nature"
> assertion.
>

I think Johnny Yooper is misguided and too trusting, and that philosophy
could get us all killed. But I do think his idea of sharing our Tang with
them was a nice thought. I think he's sweet.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 08 Dec 2006 11:55:02
From: JohnnyYooper
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
> I think Johnny Yooper is misguided

ha! you might be onto something. thats what bill oreilly said about me
when he read my email. he said i was "seriously misguided".

Date: 08 Dec 2006 11:44:06
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

On Dec 8, 1:36 pm, "JohnnyYooper" <JohnnyYoo...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> then its a good "think" i didnt actually say what you have
> attributed to me in quotation marks. i did not say it was my
> assertion, nor did i say that they'd "have" to be of a peaceful nature.
> heres what i said:
>
> . "i believe the thinking is that any civilization that is
> capable of interstellar travel would also be sophisticated enough to be
>
> of the peaceful type."

Your pedantry aside...how is that any different? The assertion (be it
your own or just one that you felt legitimate enough to pass along) is
that "any civilization" would be peaceful simply by virtue of their
technological sophistication. I rightfully took issue with that
baseless assumption.

> in other words, i was passing along an idea that others have
> proposed that aliens would most likely be friendly.
> i'm just being anal here to match your own analality. : )
> <-------see, smileyface. lets be friends!
>
> besides. after reading quietguys post, i've changed my opinion.
> whether aliens be friendly or unfriendly, we'll be at their mercy.
> theyre bound to be lightyears ahead of us technologically.
>
> and in the end, we're all just speculating. nobody really has the
> answer to what an alien's demeanor may be like. just like nobody really
> has any provably correct answer to whether or not god exists.

Of course we're just speculating...which is all that's possibly, and
why such "they'd be peaceful" assumptions are inherently silly.

Date: 08 Dec 2006 11:36:52
From: JohnnyYooper
Subject: Re: OT Life in the Universe

WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
> On Dec 7, 7:04 pm, "JohnnyYooper" <JohnnyYoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > it doesnt follow that these technical advances will be used in an
> > agressive military manner. maybe we'll share our Tang with them.
>
> Then it's a good think I wasn't arguing that. I was pointing out the
> fallacy in your "they'd have to be beings of a peaceful nature"
> assertion.

then its a good "think" i didnt actually say what you have
attributed to me in quotation marks. i did not say it was my
assertion, nor did i say that they'd "have" to be of a peaceful nature.
heres what i said:

. "i believe the thinking is that any civilization that is
capable of interstellar travel would also be sophisticated enough to be

of the peaceful type."

in other words, i was passing along an idea that others have
proposed that aliens would most likely be friendly.
i'm just being anal here to match your own analality. : )
<-------see, smileyface. lets be friends!

besides. after reading quietguys post, i've changed my opinion.
whether aliens be friendly or unfriendly, we'll be at their mercy.
theyre bound to be lightyears ahead of us technologically.

and in the end, we're all just speculating. nobody really has the
answer to what an alien's demeanor may be like. just like nobody really
has any provably correct answer to whether or not god exists.