the problem is if that planet has a colonization like us we are aliens to them and they are aliens to us! the nasa sent a message from that planet if they receive i don't know if they understand our language or accept that message that message that give nasa to that planet was approximately receive in the year 2029 we don't know if earth still alive that time, better to work faster and make a ship that travel speed of light to get there to know some knowledge to that planet em i right!
so if what you said is true about water.....where is the water on mars or venus?.....no my friend you have no clue wtf you are talking about. trust in god, btw the earth is flat
@PivotXL1 no....the bible said nothing about water on mars, therefore it isnt true. in fact....the bible do not even talk about mars, so the planet really isnt there.
@REDTEAM22003 Oh, my mistake I forgot about the facts that the bible. The earth is 6,000 years and people lived at the same time of dinosaurs. I apologize.
@REDTEAM22003 It was just some kind of weird dragon looking thing I was on a documentary once. I just assume they lived with humans since everything was created at the same time.
@PivotXL1 are you joking with me right now? dragons with humans? you been playing too much games. bottom line is: Jesus said nothing about Mars and nothing about water elsewhere. The stars in the sky will fall down on earth to burn people that dont believe in god. plz go to your nears church and give them 10% of your income to be save. There will be a room for you in heaven, trust me.
@REDTEAM22003 You sir, are either a fool, just plain stupid, or FAR to obsessed with religion good sir. I have just about HAD IT with people like you that I have met with in the past. People who think that if it's not written in BLASTED BOOK WRITTEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, it doesn't EXIST. Science has done more crap, proven more things, done incredible thing in the past CENTURY, then religion has done in the past THOUSAND years. I can see your point, I am a christian to; but...
@REDTEAM22003 ..sorry, ran out of space, now where was I? ah yes. BUT, when we place all of our blind faith, trust, and LIFE in religion, then thats where religion becomes a problem. For example: horrile massacres have occured in the past based around religion.
Well, I heard that the planets of Gliese 581 were miscalculated... we seriously need a better way of seeing planets then looking at a black dot and making wild speculation from then.
There are enormous amounts of water on other planets too.In a such huge Multivers how could be posible that only this small planet called earth to have water on it?
I hope the human race stays trapped on earth and never able to step on another earth-like planets surface and only see and observe it. It would be a sad day to see our parasitic nature spread to another beautifull planet, gobble up its resources and leave it like a stripped fruit tree.
@ohboon2 - so God is a slave driver and owner...how funny that you think so. I wonder what a god might need slaves for...unless he's not a god and some lazy bully who can't do everything as a god is supposed to be able to do instantly or by will alone. And that is why religion is stupid.
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." - Genesis 2:1-3
"He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses." -Psalm 33:5-7. "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." - Psalm 90:2
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made... He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." - John 1:1-3,10, 14
"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? - Job 38:30-32."He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite." -Psalm 147:4-5. "The LORD reigns"!
"That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes. For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy." - Isaiah 65:16-18
"Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." -Isaiah 66:1-2
we have to invade it, then kill the aliens, next we made an independance movement in order to destroy the earth, and finally look for an other world to continue with the proceess
One point I haven't heard brought up before: Red dwarf stars mature and change MUCH more slowly than yellow stars like our sun. Thus, any habitable planets STAY habitable for a much longer window of time. It only took about a billion years for life to get started here, and G581's planets have probably been capable of supporting life since long before our solar system even formed. And they'll still be capable of supporting life long after our sun has gone nova. So their odds look pretty good!
This video needs to be updated. There are indications, reported recently by a team of scientists, that 2 additional planets (Gliese 581 F and Gliese 581 G) have been discovered orbiting Gliese 581. That would bring this star's tally up to at least 6 planets. More importantly, of the 2 latest additions, Gliese 581 G is thought to be in the "Goldilocks Zone". The other, 581 F is too far. Also,of the previous 4 known, none are as promising as 581 G for possibly having favorable conditions for life.
Find a planet like earth will give us more information about the formation of the Earth as well as the evolution of life. Another reason is since we need water to survive if there is water there you may live there. If anything happens to the Earth or the Earth just to crowded, we can move there. ^^
@TekaiGuy There are some words & phrases which are just difficult, Even Isaac Asimov commented on the matter in 1 of his essays. e.g. take the planet "Uranus". Now, you can do the your-anus thing which is, perhaps, most common. But it somehow seems improper in polite society. Or, you can do "urinous". But that's not much better. Brian Greene narrated the audio version of his recent multiverse book, and ran into the same problem with "pianist". In a world of potty-minded people, you can't win.
That is so cool! I would love to go see what a day is like on that planet! The gravity is only about 2x that of Earth, so we could potentially live there.
@shoshanish Step 1 is finding out how to move at that speed. Step two would be how to negate mass while in FTL travel. I wouldn't rule anything out, but it's unlikely. Unless some alien spaceship that has already done it crashes on earth.
@phildenbelg what we need is to find a way to act like that theoretical particle that cuts itself off from the universe, we could do the same with a eletro-megnatic field.
or we could just warp or cut spacetime fabric, we could warp it by expanding space behind the ship and contracting space in front of the ship.
@shoshanish you mean a gamma particle? Yea that is one theory. Another is using anti-matter/dark-matter to warp space, as you say. It's all still theoretical, but I'm sure someday someone will figure something out. Humanity can't be destined to live out our whole civilization on one planet. But who knows for sure what will happen.
maybe we should advance some form of reasonable space travel, since the way things look now we cant even travel within our own solar system, space is freaking huge, who wants to spend 40,000 years traveling to another earth like planet?
@LordoftheJamesClan It's an awesome idea, however, we've become pretty stagnant as far as new technology is concerned. Computers are awesome, and that field is expanding at an extraordinary rate. It still hasn't helped, as far as I know, the use of combustion engines. I have hope..........I just think our revolutionary ideas are borderline nonexistent. We're great at furthering current tech........not so good at creating new tech. (my opinions and nothing more)
Why are we ONLY searching for planets that have the possibility of having liquid water?. How do we know that other life forms need water to survive?. We DON'T!, considering we haven't found any extraterrestrial life forms (as far as we know). As far as we know Earth might be the only planet that needs liquid water to sustain life. We, humans, are only considering the fact that other planet's need liquid water to sustain life because WE humans on Earth need water to survive.
@turtule66 We assume that basic organisms need water to survive because otherwise they would need some complex mechanism to lift themselves up and move towards some source of energy.
@turtule66 Yeah, our science is based on our own nature.. With such a huge universe there should be life forms that may survive on other conditions than we do.
@turtule66 I see what you mean but surely you would have the best chance of finding life on a water planet...maybe somewhere there is life that doesn't need water to survive but stick to what we know i say.
@turtule66 Well dont you think it's a good start? I really agree on your point,but we need to start somewhere...if we do find a planet with water and no life, the least bacteria....and from there we can go on.
thats the point. because we need water to life we are searching planets with liquid water on it. we expect that we (all life forms) are the cosmic "standard", that means if everything goes right in the evolution of a planet it must be like on our planet.
@turtule66 Water is chemically unique which allows it to sustain life. Nothing else detected so far can act as water. Therefore, going by what we know we'd look for planets with water.
It's possible that the laws of physics are different in different areas. However, we assume it's the same everywhere.
If you need a new pair of shoes you don't start by looking for it at your nearest McDonalds. You first go to stores that you know for certain that sells shoes, like Sports Trek or Foot Locker. We know for certain that a form of life evolves around water, so we start by looking at planets with water on it as opposed to glaring at a Gas Giant hoping to discover some kind of bubble gum monster.
@turtule66 you've got a serious point there. In fact you are actually right, the only problem a lot of scientists have is a closed-mind. They dont know how to think of other possibilities
@spacewatcher215 I wouldn't say it is because they have closed minds at all. Many scientists have speculated about silicon based lifeforms, who might live off something other than water. That would be a TOTALLY different kind of life than what we have here on Earth. But how do we know we would even recognize it as a form of life if we did see such a thing? We look for planets that can support life as we know it (like us) because we have no idea what to look for otherwise (if anything).
@turtule66 Perhaps this has already been pointed out, but we are searching for planets with liquid water because we KNOW that liquid water can give rise to life. Do you happen to know of any other way complex life can evolve? If not, by what criteria other than liquid water do you propose?
You obviously do not understand them most basic fundamental concepts of molecular biology. I assume you are a religious mind, and I apologize if I am incorrect, but if I am correct in assuming so, this is defense enough to explain why you would assume such an unrealistic proposal for "living material."
it's just because water is a great polar solvent, and complex molecules tend to have some hydrogen bonding to keep them together, like the hydrogen bonding among water molecules
necessary for life? idk, but it certainly is a plus
-All- life on Earth requires liquid water. Like it or not, it is the only form of life with which we are familiar, and as such, it is the only form of life for which we know how to look. Nevertheless, if, say, we one day come across life in the outer solar system that uses liquid methane as a solvent, then we will know to broaden the search to include extrasolar planets that are covered in this chemical as well!
@turtule66 yea man, I cant tell ya how bad watching stuff that assumes life HAS to have water to exist and thats not true at all. People need to stop asking the impossible answers and deal with the answers the universe gives us because we'll NEVER know everything about the universe. People are so obsessed and half dont even know what they're talking about.
@turtule66 its because EVERYTHING we know of that is living needs liquid water, even if its just small amounts, to servive, and many scientists do admit that, other life might not need that, its just since the only life we know of does need water, its the best place to start, theres too many planets out there, and too many starts to just pick at random, and they needed to start somewhere, and liquid water was on of the things they decided to put in the list to start, at least.
every life form in on earth needs water to survive.
the other planets in our solar system cannot sustain life because they dont have water. they are also either too hot or too cold. i highly doubt life on other planets in our galaxy or universe or anywhere else in the multiverse use some other substance like poisonous gasses to sustain life. thats only in the movies bro.
our water came from outerspace bro inside bilions of meteors.unlikely Earth was the "ONE and ONLY" planet or moon bombarded by meteors with water inside as you seem to suggest. There is Water on Mars but not in liquid form, and there is water (and ice) on the moon Europa. Nevertheless, it is possible for Gliese 581 to have water. You don't know for sure whether it does or doesn't so stop making guesses and presenting it as fact. Only scientists are allowed to do that LOL
@JoeSueHayabusa1 Hey guys! Every planet in our solar system has water, but not all of them liquid. We might find liquid on Europa under the ice crust or on Mars, undersoil.
@Ulhvan Not necessarily, and even if so, in what amounts? To go even further, it's liquid water that's necesssary, , not ice or vapor, and we've still yet to find a planet that has definitively. I am all for the search, though.
@turtule66 If humanity hopes to explore the galaxy and move to/colonize Earth like planets, then water is necessary. Do you know of a human whose anatomy is made of 70% water that can survive without water?
@turtule66 Most scientists keep an open mind when it comes to the possibility of other life forms capable of sustaining themselves without water. But it all comes down to our survival instincts. We are mostly interested in planets we could colonize. We need water for life and planets containing liquid water in a friendly environment give us hope. We are very well aware that our sun won't last forever and that in a few billion years whatever evolves from us better take off or get roasted.
@turtule66 I agree, we need to keep an open mind about things, but until you demonstrate that maybe life doesn't need water, we're going to stay with our best theory. I mean, yeah, maybe a certain atmosphere would give rise to a new type of life, but water and certain chemically active solids are where nucleotides and proteins form, nowhere else, without water, they can't join together. You need to prove that life can exist in non Earth-Like environments, or else we'd waste billions of dollars
Here's a diagram I created to help you understand what Baxter is getting at:
tinyurl [dot] com [slash] 286e2zm
Do we exist at a very special time and place in human history, in the blink before billions of years galaxy colonisation? Or is it more likely that there's nothing extraordinary about us, and we're a few hundred billion lives away from extinction?
> You're quoting me "facts" from a science "fiction" writer
Look at my first post. I introduced it as an interesting concept. Nothing more.
Secondly, the entire trilogy explores things like the Fermi principle and Drakes equation using a sound scientific basis.
Thirdly, apart from ad hominem attacks, some of which suggest misunderstanding of the premise being voiced by Baxter, no-one has actually tried to explain what problem they have with it beyond 'you should pick up a maths book'.
"If our living numbers were able to grow beyond quadrillions in space, you and I would be much more likely to exist then, not now. "
For this to be the case, you would have to believe that we (our consciousness) are waiting in some kind of limbo before conception. I am of the thought that our minds and personalitys, while shaped by our environments in certain ways are as a result of our physical structure. In which case, the chances of me being born in the future are zero.
> For this to be the case, you would have to believe that we (our consciousness)
You're missing Baxter's statistical premise entirely. Forget all that other stuff I wrote when I was trying to rehash and re-explain again and again. Just find the post that starts...
"It's not my logic! I tracked down the origin for you..."
That is the best, simplest explanation of what Baxter is trying to say. It is purely a statistical statement. Nothing about the how or why of existence itself.
Why so are you defending this logic so vehemently? I am not missing anything, your explanations are weak/misguided. The premise you are refering to, is only valid after the point at which we leave to planet to colonise others. It does not mean that because we were born on earth, we will never colonise the stars.
THERE IS NOTHING TO DEFEND! It is a very, very simple statistical concept or premise to understand, voiced by a famous scifi writer. There is nothing wrong or illogical with it at all.
I'm just frustrated that people who are supposedly refuting it are also talking about biogenesis, sperm, births, consciousness, etc. That has NOTHING to do with anything Baxter said. YT is obviously not a good place to try to explain stuff in less than 500 chars.
> It does not mean that because we were born on earth,
> we will never colonise the stars.
Of course not! Statistics can't tell the future! I nor Baxter never said that. That's ridiculous! But statistically speaking, it means we are either in the first hundredth of humans to exist, or we are in the first trillionth of humans to exist.
Take that how you want. I've had enough of trying to explain the very simple implications of this to people who are intent on somehow misunderstanding it.
"it means we are either in the first hundredth of humans to exist, or we are in the first trillionth of humans to exist." People find it easy to understand what a person is trying to say, as long as that person knows what they are trying to say. The above sentance means nothing.
I was quoting you by the way,
"Ergo, statistically speaking, either me and you have won the lottery, or humans will not colonise space. "
Either we are earthbound until extinction, which limits the number of humans that will ever exist. If this scenario is true, we are in the first hundredth of humans that will ever exist, which is statistically more likely than the next scenario...
If we colonise space, the number of humans that will ever exist is not limited. If this scenario is true, then we are in the first quadrillionth of humans to exist, which is statistically much more unlikely.
Here's a diagram I created to help you understand what Baxter is getting at:
tinyurl [dot] com [slash] 286e2zm
Some of you are too wound up. It isn't a claim of any sort. It is a statistical idea; just a concept to think about, mull around and enjoy. Do we exist at a very special time and place in human history, in the blink before billions of years galaxy colonisation? Or is it more likely that there's nothing extraordinary about us, and we're a few hundred billion lives away from extinction?
Sorry but this seems to be a really stupid conversation. Your chances of existing are 100% your chances of exsting now are 100% and your chances of existing on earth now are 100%. Unless of course you are another one of my hallucination then your 50% a figment of my imagination and 50% chemically induced.
> and your chances of existing on earth now are 100%
Exactly. But given the total number of humans born (past *and* future) and the places that they will be born, and the time-scale in which they will be born, it would be statistically strange for you and I to be born now and on earth if humans did eventually colonise space. Whereas it would not be statistically strange if our population is going to be limited to 10 billion (due to the size of the planet) and we never do colonise space.
@ByeCruelWorld Given the total number of British born (past *and* future) and the places they will be born, and the time-scale in which they will be born, it would be statistically strange for a British to be born 2000 years ago AND in Britain if the British did eventually colonize 90% of the world by the 1600s. Whereas it would not be statistically strange if the British population is limited to 100,000 (due to the size of the island) and they never colonize 90% of the world.
@ByeCruelWorld Your words, except with its subjects changed to fit the obvious fucking events that already happened. I hope you realized just how messed up your logic is.
It's not my logic! I tracked down the origin for you. It is from sci-fi writer Stephen Baxter, from 'Time' (part of a trilogy). It uses Bayes Theorem.
One more time, as simply as I possibly can:
If you believe humans will colonise the galaxy, then you must believe that you and I were born in the first trillionth or quadrillionth of all humans that will ever exist.
If earthbound until extinction, we are in the first HUNDREDTH of humans to ever exist.
> 200 planets with earths population, there is actually a 0.5%
> chance of you existing on earth (not 2%)
I wasn't expressing probability is percentages. However, I did get that wrong. 1/200 = 0.005 chance, not .002 as I typed previously; I just wasn't thinking. I got the other two examples correct though.
> but there is only a 0.5% chance of you existing on any other colonized planet
Yes, but a huge 95.5% chance of not being born on Earth!
> If we are to colonize space, it MUST start like this
That just illustrates that you still don't understand what is being statistically said. I'm not going to explain it again though.
All I can suggest is that you think about it like this: What are the chances of YOU being born NOW (this time) and HERE (this place), if instead of a paltry 100 billion earthbound humans ever existing before our demise, there are going to be quintillions of humans spread over the galaxy?
> You keep rambling on completely missing the point
Well, nothing you've said leads me to believe you understand the premise or concept of the statement. It has nothing to do with the chances of you existing or not. It is with regard to the chances of you existing in a certain TIME AND PLACE given two drastically different scenarios of human populations, given that space colonisation would entail far, far, far greater time, place and number than an earthbound population.
also, the human reproduction system or dna could start to wear away like the clock stops ticking but we are still here, also how would u tell the time ? there would be no such thing as a clock in space so we would have to invent new ways to deal with time. time was originalally took from the time it takes the sun to circulate our earth so in space u cant tell the time.
right firstly this new youtube is shit an they cant keep anything simple. an i not anybody to say anything about our future to be honest who r any of us to say anything...but it would be amazing if we could live to see space. i would do anything to go out to different planets, maybe the human species is destined to evolve to such a high level that we will be gods ourselves. wat will your average human look like in 50000.000 yrs??
Its Rly quite pointless wen ppl try searchin for 'earth-like planets' with the intent of migrating there in the future..
Wat they should be doing more of, is researching New technologies that will help them travel through space Much quicker for When & IF they find a planet dat is 20+ light years away (such as the one talked abt in this vid).
Normal combustion engines just wont cut it in space & nobody in their right mind would want to spend generations in a spaceship 'trying' to get there..!
I didn't 'come up' with it. It is a statistical concept.
> The chances of us existing have nothing to do
> with the potential of humans to colonize space
You haven't understood the statistical statement. The chance of you and I existing NOW is quite large if human population does not keep increasing exponentially. If our living numbers were able to grow beyond quadrillions in space, you and I would be much more likely to exist then, not now.
Maybe I can put it another way for you. If humans colonized space, only a few hundred billion would have ever been born on earth, compared to the quadrillions or more who colonised other planets in the galaxy. So being born on earth is statistically strange. To be born on earth, the original planet, is like winning a lottery, given the huge number of humans that would not be born on Earth.
Ergo, statistically speaking, either me and you have won the lottery, or humans will not colonise space.
Even though you don't understand the statistics, this is basically the argument, but as I've said, it's nonsense because of exactly the same reason that the chances of the first multi-cellular organism arising are so low and yet it happened. If we are to colonize space, it MUST start like this, there has to be a starting planet from which the life arises. It can't be any other way and that makes the "statistics" of your existence irrelevant.
@ByeCruelWorld WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SAYING? I am able to understand a LOT of absract ideas, yet I have no clue what you are saying. So to get this striaght, if we colonize space, the chance two different people (non-twins) born on the same planet in a relatively close time period is less than if we didn't colonize space. And I am taking out of consideration each sperm cell chance of fertilizing a egg.
You don't understand statistics. What you're doing by saying your chance of existing is 1 is that you MUST exist. Now when you say there are 200 planets with earths population, there is actually a 0.5% chance of you existing on earth (not 2%), but there is only a 0.5% chance of you existing on any other colonized planet. So there is equally low chance of you existing on any of them. And yet, from your assumption, the total chance of you existing is 1 and so you MUST exist on one
@ByeCruelWorld You don't know shit about statistics. Your arguments are absurd. To be blunt, the odds of you coming into existence is the odds of your dad fucking your mom on the day you were conceived (denoted x) multiplied by 1/the number of sperms in your dad's body at the time of conception. x is a function of PAST variables which brought your mom and dad into the same room. It has nothing to do with what the population is in the future, or what planet they end up on.
Scientists have always thought the bottom of the ocean was inhospitable yet we found animals there (beyond the suns rays)
So what is stopping living creatures on other planet from breathing gases other than oxygen... maybe they dont breathe at all, maybe they absorb heat to stay alive? For all we know Jupiter could harbour life... Think out of the box; there has to be different metals/minerals out there we havent heard of, as well as some forms of life, right?
spectroscopy, basically the light that bounces off the planet has signature patters in it that tell you what the atoms it bounced off of were. you can tell, for the most part, what a planet is made up of just by looking at it.
oh, and you know this for a fact do you? current estimates say that the universe will go on expanding forever, not collapse back in on itself. and who are you to say we wont colonize space? we have come this far in only a few hundred years, how can you be so pessimistic when we still have millions, at least, to go on this planet.
Here's an interesting concept. On the planet right now are more living humans than the total who have ever existed. Space colonisation would mean continued exponential growth. If quadrillions of future humans are going to exist, then the chance of you and I existing at this particular point in time becomes utterly minuscule.
Whereas if our population stays stable and earth-bound, the chance of you and I being born on earth is 1.
@ByeCruelWorld I've heard this argument before and it's absurd. The chances of us existing have nothing to do with the potential of humans to colonize space. Also, evolution does not stop at humans. Once there are different colonies on different planets, evolutionary drift will continue and there will probably even be speciation, no more humans. In this light, I ask you: What are the chances of the first mutli-cellular organism arising? And yet it happened. The argument you present is nonsense.
@ByeCruelWorld Another thing: the chances of us being born on earth if life stays on earth is not 1 if colonization makes the chances "utterly minuscule". I'd like to know how you come up with that.
whos says life needs water?
maybe life can live without water...
MegaNES101 3 weeks ago in playlist Alien Worlds
@MegaNES101
humans,plants,animals(we know) can't survive for long without water
without water,earth wouldn't be who it is now.water produced the first living cells
Taang4evr 1 week ago in playlist Alien Worlds
This has been flagged as spam show
Where is Gliese 581g?
scenerysound1 1 month ago
lol what if there is human intelligence there our Sun will Be name Guwrhqpirh C
2MorrowsFuture 2 months ago in playlist More videos from SpaceRip
This has been flagged as spam show
Relgions are all fake n gay
2sik4yamum 2 months ago
the problem is if that planet has a colonization like us we are aliens to them and they are aliens to us! the nasa sent a message from that planet if they receive i don't know if they understand our language or accept that message that message that give nasa to that planet was approximately receive in the year 2029 we don't know if earth still alive that time, better to work faster and make a ship that travel speed of light to get there to know some knowledge to that planet em i right!
melvaMylove 3 months ago
wow
AlgisKemezys 4 months ago
Collisions? Planet X? I bet you can't wait to see my Venus slam into Uranus. >:P
snowfallzz 5 months ago
Europenis
millroyboy07 5 months ago
so if what you said is true about water.....where is the water on mars or venus?.....no my friend you have no clue wtf you are talking about. trust in god, btw the earth is flat
REDTEAM22003 5 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 There is water on mars, although it is either frozen or chemically attached to another substance. But, it is there.
PivotXL1 5 months ago
@PivotXL1 no....the bible said nothing about water on mars, therefore it isnt true. in fact....the bible do not even talk about mars, so the planet really isnt there.
REDTEAM22003 5 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 Oh, my mistake I forgot about the facts that the bible. The earth is 6,000 years and people lived at the same time of dinosaurs. I apologize.
PivotXL1 5 months ago
@PivotXL1 wtf are you talking about? wtf is dinosaurs? some kinda of food?
REDTEAM22003 5 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 It was just some kind of weird dragon looking thing I was on a documentary once. I just assume they lived with humans since everything was created at the same time.
PivotXL1 5 months ago
@PivotXL1 are you joking with me right now? dragons with humans? you been playing too much games. bottom line is: Jesus said nothing about Mars and nothing about water elsewhere. The stars in the sky will fall down on earth to burn people that dont believe in god. plz go to your nears church and give them 10% of your income to be save. There will be a room for you in heaven, trust me.
REDTEAM22003 5 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 You sir, are either a fool, just plain stupid, or FAR to obsessed with religion good sir. I have just about HAD IT with people like you that I have met with in the past. People who think that if it's not written in BLASTED BOOK WRITTEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, it doesn't EXIST. Science has done more crap, proven more things, done incredible thing in the past CENTURY, then religion has done in the past THOUSAND years. I can see your point, I am a christian to; but...
StealthClaw1 2 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 ..sorry, ran out of space, now where was I? ah yes. BUT, when we place all of our blind faith, trust, and LIFE in religion, then thats where religion becomes a problem. For example: horrile massacres have occured in the past based around religion.
StealthClaw1 2 months ago
i want to go gliese 581 E so bad!
theFunnierWill211187 6 months ago
they hadnt discovered g yet...this is new solar system is a great discovery and makes a lot of space fans so excited
wreyoG 7 months ago
Well, I heard that the planets of Gliese 581 were miscalculated... we seriously need a better way of seeing planets then looking at a black dot and making wild speculation from then.
Halflifefan54 7 months ago
e b c d g f
at least 6 planets
revrunnertech2772 7 months ago
the biggest questions of all is their life on that planet?
randomguyodst46 7 months ago
There are enormous amounts of water on other planets too.In a such huge Multivers how could be posible that only this small planet called earth to have water on it?
prodipe23 9 months ago
Yes, but do they have Aldi stores?
23MK07 9 months ago
I hope the human race stays trapped on earth and never able to step on another earth-like planets surface and only see and observe it. It would be a sad day to see our parasitic nature spread to another beautifull planet, gobble up its resources and leave it like a stripped fruit tree.
prestonw55 9 months ago
at 1:05 it sounds a lot like he says Europenis
MasterXxploder 11 months ago
@MasterXxploder More like "Ur a Penis" xDD
daisyfan10198 11 months ago
Humans are slaves of God...
ohboon2 11 months ago
@ohboon2 - so God is a slave driver and owner...how funny that you think so. I wonder what a god might need slaves for...unless he's not a god and some lazy bully who can't do everything as a god is supposed to be able to do instantly or by will alone. And that is why religion is stupid.
matreyia 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." - Genesis 2:1-3
HISservant21 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses." -Psalm 33:5-7. "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." - Psalm 90:2
HISservant21 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made... He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." - John 1:1-3,10, 14
HISservant21 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? - Job 38:30-32."He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite." -Psalm 147:4-5. "The LORD reigns"!
HISservant21 11 months ago
"That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes. For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy." - Isaiah 65:16-18
HISservant21 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." -Isaiah 66:1-2
HISservant21 11 months ago
one question... how will we get there?
TheSupremephenom 1 year ago
YEAH MR WHITE! YEAH SCIENCE!
074377623 1 year ago
Lol
turn in the cc transcribe,,,
so hilarious...
aniket200929 1 year ago
we have to invade it, then kill the aliens, next we made an independance movement in order to destroy the earth, and finally look for an other world to continue with the proceess
GLITCHERO 1 year ago
@GLITCHERO That would be like Aliens invading us :P
MoviesInWebsites 1 year ago
really? your all stupid snooty snobs germs bugs be gone
bobodd5 1 year ago
I personally am amazed that the sun managed to form a planet with life even though its hostile towards all life
MniToster 1 year ago
alright we found something that could sustain life now we need a rover there and a spaceship that can travel very very fast
TheVidotube 1 year ago
all are posting so long texts lol
XCHUSKYXC 1 year ago
One point I haven't heard brought up before: Red dwarf stars mature and change MUCH more slowly than yellow stars like our sun. Thus, any habitable planets STAY habitable for a much longer window of time. It only took about a billion years for life to get started here, and G581's planets have probably been capable of supporting life since long before our solar system even formed. And they'll still be capable of supporting life long after our sun has gone nova. So their odds look pretty good!
EATABAGOFHELL 1 year ago
This video needs to be updated. There are indications, reported recently by a team of scientists, that 2 additional planets (Gliese 581 F and Gliese 581 G) have been discovered orbiting Gliese 581. That would bring this star's tally up to at least 6 planets. More importantly, of the 2 latest additions, Gliese 581 G is thought to be in the "Goldilocks Zone". The other, 581 F is too far. Also,of the previous 4 known, none are as promising as 581 G for possibly having favorable conditions for life.
drzeus99 1 year ago
@drzeus99 thank u for the information. can you tell me where can i find more fresh news about these planets and about other science stuff to?
Adas53 1 year ago
Beam me up Scotty.
GM1258 1 year ago
Find a planet like earth will give us more information about the formation of the Earth as well as the evolution of life. Another reason is since we need water to survive if there is water there you may live there. If anything happens to the Earth or the Earth just to crowded, we can move there. ^^
billygmss 1 year ago
I could've sworn I heard him say "penis" at 1:05 the first time I watched this.
TekaiGuy 1 year ago 25
@TekaiGuy lmao i know right lololol
rap33r100 1 year ago
@TekaiGuy he says Europeans not penis just that he pronounced it wrong
chufu11 10 months ago
@TekaiGuy AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HA HE DID SAY PENIS
chamblizi 6 months ago
@TekaiGuy There are some words & phrases which are just difficult, Even Isaac Asimov commented on the matter in 1 of his essays. e.g. take the planet "Uranus". Now, you can do the your-anus thing which is, perhaps, most common. But it somehow seems improper in polite society. Or, you can do "urinous". But that's not much better. Brian Greene narrated the audio version of his recent multiverse book, and ran into the same problem with "pianist". In a world of potty-minded people, you can't win.
sbergman27 5 months ago
What's with the "rrrrr"
SacreDro 1 year ago
check out my latest exclusive exoplanets
mcplanetearth 1 year ago
awesome!!! NOW THE TERRORISTS AND ROBBERS AND CIREAL KILLERS CAN HAVE THERE OWN BITCHING PLANET
bbabbyf 1 year ago
So, is this completely different to planetX?
Xboxfreak1241 1 year ago
I hope there's Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonald down there.
arecksandro 1 year ago
@arecksandro
you are crazy!
Ratmaster100 10 months ago
maybe theres life on that planet checkin out our planet ;P
Reavous 1 year ago
I hope it's habitable.
VicTheMouth 1 year ago
It will happen sooner than you think.. We'll have the tech soon or have it already!
We're not alone.
WickeDiLLusionZ 1 year ago
It sucks we'll never live to the day of inhabiting other planets :C
drrednek 1 year ago 2
@drrednek Never say never. Someone may discover a means to surpass the speed of light in the next 20-30 years. It could happen.
piratebri 1 year ago
@piratebri rather count in centuries than decades before it happens...
Acrimonator 1 year ago
That is so cool! I would love to go see what a day is like on that planet! The gravity is only about 2x that of Earth, so we could potentially live there.
terr547 1 year ago
if we have the speed of light sorry to slow
phildenbelg 1 year ago
@phildenbelg it would takke 20 years to get there WITH the speed of light.
shoshanish 1 year ago
@shoshanish That is why we need FTL travel.
PivotXL1 5 months ago
@PivotXL1 good luck getting that. if we can find out how within the next 50 years i would be so fucking happy.
shoshanish 5 months ago
@shoshanish Step 1 is finding out how to move at that speed. Step two would be how to negate mass while in FTL travel. I wouldn't rule anything out, but it's unlikely. Unless some alien spaceship that has already done it crashes on earth.
PivotXL1 5 months ago
@phildenbelg what we need is to find a way to act like that theoretical particle that cuts itself off from the universe, we could do the same with a eletro-megnatic field.
or we could just warp or cut spacetime fabric, we could warp it by expanding space behind the ship and contracting space in front of the ship.
shoshanish 1 year ago
@shoshanish you mean a gamma particle? Yea that is one theory. Another is using anti-matter/dark-matter to warp space, as you say. It's all still theoretical, but I'm sure someday someone will figure something out. Humanity can't be destined to live out our whole civilization on one planet. But who knows for sure what will happen.
piratebri 1 year ago
I cant take these guys seriously because of their funny accents lol
funk192 1 year ago
maybe we should advance some form of reasonable space travel, since the way things look now we cant even travel within our own solar system, space is freaking huge, who wants to spend 40,000 years traveling to another earth like planet?
LordoftheJamesClan 1 year ago
@LordoftheJamesClan It's an awesome idea, however, we've become pretty stagnant as far as new technology is concerned. Computers are awesome, and that field is expanding at an extraordinary rate. It still hasn't helped, as far as I know, the use of combustion engines. I have hope..........I just think our revolutionary ideas are borderline nonexistent. We're great at furthering current tech........not so good at creating new tech. (my opinions and nothing more)
Thulgore 1 year ago
To bad space travel has not yet been adapted. Someday though...
UninhabitablePlanet 1 year ago
science kicks religions ass
TurkiyeCumhurbaskani 1 year ago
Why are we ONLY searching for planets that have the possibility of having liquid water?. How do we know that other life forms need water to survive?. We DON'T!, considering we haven't found any extraterrestrial life forms (as far as we know). As far as we know Earth might be the only planet that needs liquid water to sustain life. We, humans, are only considering the fact that other planet's need liquid water to sustain life because WE humans on Earth need water to survive.
turtule66 1 year ago 32
@turtule66 We assume that basic organisms need water to survive because otherwise they would need some complex mechanism to lift themselves up and move towards some source of energy.
KeyAttendant 1 year ago
@turtule66 Yeah, our science is based on our own nature.. With such a huge universe there should be life forms that may survive on other conditions than we do.
MultiCorni 1 year ago 2
@turtule66 I see what you mean but surely you would have the best chance of finding life on a water planet...maybe somewhere there is life that doesn't need water to survive but stick to what we know i say.
82chrissyd 1 year ago
@turtule66 life needs water for the chemical reactions, it wouldn't work with other chemicals
MegaHazzer123 1 year ago
@turtule66 Well dont you think it's a good start? I really agree on your point,but we need to start somewhere...if we do find a planet with water and no life, the least bacteria....and from there we can go on.
propaghandi2 1 year ago
@turtule66
thats the point. because we need water to life we are searching planets with liquid water on it. we expect that we (all life forms) are the cosmic "standard", that means if everything goes right in the evolution of a planet it must be like on our planet.
bronsonsnip0r 1 year ago
@turtule66 A planet with water in gas form can maintain an atmosphere which should help life to emerge.
Keropodium 1 year ago
@turtule66 Water is chemically unique which allows it to sustain life. Nothing else detected so far can act as water. Therefore, going by what we know we'd look for planets with water.
It's possible that the laws of physics are different in different areas. However, we assume it's the same everywhere.
Wishingstarification 1 year ago
@turtule66 Just stop talking... like seriously.
If you need a new pair of shoes you don't start by looking for it at your nearest McDonalds. You first go to stores that you know for certain that sells shoes, like Sports Trek or Foot Locker. We know for certain that a form of life evolves around water, so we start by looking at planets with water on it as opposed to glaring at a Gas Giant hoping to discover some kind of bubble gum monster.
zkevwlu 1 year ago 8
@zkevwlu Bubble gum monster approves this message.
AgrivatedKillah 6 months ago
@turtule66 you've got a serious point there. In fact you are actually right, the only problem a lot of scientists have is a closed-mind. They dont know how to think of other possibilities
spacewatcher215 1 year ago
@spacewatcher215 I wouldn't say it is because they have closed minds at all. Many scientists have speculated about silicon based lifeforms, who might live off something other than water. That would be a TOTALLY different kind of life than what we have here on Earth. But how do we know we would even recognize it as a form of life if we did see such a thing? We look for planets that can support life as we know it (like us) because we have no idea what to look for otherwise (if anything).
TopSpeedCGT 1 year ago
@turtule66 Perhaps this has already been pointed out, but we are searching for planets with liquid water because we KNOW that liquid water can give rise to life. Do you happen to know of any other way complex life can evolve? If not, by what criteria other than liquid water do you propose?
justinsensing 1 year ago
@turtule66
You obviously do not understand them most basic fundamental concepts of molecular biology. I assume you are a religious mind, and I apologize if I am incorrect, but if I am correct in assuming so, this is defense enough to explain why you would assume such an unrealistic proposal for "living material."
Llavez 1 year ago
@turtule66 Stop complicating things man, they are bad enough right now.
TheDrAdrian 11 months ago
@turtule66 DUH! and what do think we are goung to need to head for wn about 5 billion years when the sun explodes? THINK Mc Fly!
MrRobbardos 11 months ago
@turtule66 DUH! and what do think we are going to need to head for in about 5 billion years when the sun explodes? THINK Mc Fly!
MrRobbardos 11 months ago
@turtule66
it's just because water is a great polar solvent, and complex molecules tend to have some hydrogen bonding to keep them together, like the hydrogen bonding among water molecules
necessary for life? idk, but it certainly is a plus
spontaneoussam2 9 months ago
@turtule66 I agree we should expand our search instead of just Liquid water life.
But as far was we know water is the only thing that means life.
Bluethecrazy8 9 months ago
@turtule66:
-All- life on Earth requires liquid water. Like it or not, it is the only form of life with which we are familiar, and as such, it is the only form of life for which we know how to look. Nevertheless, if, say, we one day come across life in the outer solar system that uses liquid methane as a solvent, then we will know to broaden the search to include extrasolar planets that are covered in this chemical as well!
eibenag 9 months ago
@turtule66 yea man, I cant tell ya how bad watching stuff that assumes life HAS to have water to exist and thats not true at all. People need to stop asking the impossible answers and deal with the answers the universe gives us because we'll NEVER know everything about the universe. People are so obsessed and half dont even know what they're talking about.
\
NitrusTheUnholy 8 months ago
@turtule66 its because EVERYTHING we know of that is living needs liquid water, even if its just small amounts, to servive, and many scientists do admit that, other life might not need that, its just since the only life we know of does need water, its the best place to start, theres too many planets out there, and too many starts to just pick at random, and they needed to start somewhere, and liquid water was on of the things they decided to put in the list to start, at least.
MechaShadowV2 8 months ago
@turtule66 it's because so far we only know of liquid water to be the substance that can sustain life
and it's the only starting point we've got
scanning all other planets just in case would be a waste of time for the moment
dudu1125 8 months ago
@turtule66
Water is life.
every life form in on earth needs water to survive.
the other planets in our solar system cannot sustain life because they dont have water. they are also either too hot or too cold. i highly doubt life on other planets in our galaxy or universe or anywhere else in the multiverse use some other substance like poisonous gasses to sustain life. thats only in the movies bro.
JoeSueHayabusa1 7 months ago 2
@JoeSueHayabusa1
our water came from outerspace bro inside bilions of meteors.unlikely Earth was the "ONE and ONLY" planet or moon bombarded by meteors with water inside as you seem to suggest. There is Water on Mars but not in liquid form, and there is water (and ice) on the moon Europa. Nevertheless, it is possible for Gliese 581 to have water. You don't know for sure whether it does or doesn't so stop making guesses and presenting it as fact. Only scientists are allowed to do that LOL
CoryTube2011 3 months ago
@JoeSueHayabusa1 Hey guys! Every planet in our solar system has water, but not all of them liquid. We might find liquid on Europa under the ice crust or on Mars, undersoil.
Ulhvan 1 month ago in playlist Alien Worlds 3
@Ulhvan Not necessarily, and even if so, in what amounts? To go even further, it's liquid water that's necesssary, , not ice or vapor, and we've still yet to find a planet that has definitively. I am all for the search, though.
Macbrother 1 week ago
@turtule66 If humanity hopes to explore the galaxy and move to/colonize Earth like planets, then water is necessary. Do you know of a human whose anatomy is made of 70% water that can survive without water?
Hence, the whole point of water.
Daeconian 7 months ago
@turtule66 Most scientists keep an open mind when it comes to the possibility of other life forms capable of sustaining themselves without water. But it all comes down to our survival instincts. We are mostly interested in planets we could colonize. We need water for life and planets containing liquid water in a friendly environment give us hope. We are very well aware that our sun won't last forever and that in a few billion years whatever evolves from us better take off or get roasted.
TwistedMind6969 7 months ago
@turtule66 I agree, we need to keep an open mind about things, but until you demonstrate that maybe life doesn't need water, we're going to stay with our best theory. I mean, yeah, maybe a certain atmosphere would give rise to a new type of life, but water and certain chemically active solids are where nucleotides and proteins form, nowhere else, without water, they can't join together. You need to prove that life can exist in non Earth-Like environments, or else we'd waste billions of dollars
Halflifefan54 7 months ago
I wish I was born a couple hundred years from now, when other earth like planets are the norm. and we could hopefully be able to travel to them
CellphoneTL 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's a diagram I created to help you understand what Baxter is getting at:
tinyurl [dot] com [slash] 286e2zm
Do we exist at a very special time and place in human history, in the blink before billions of years galaxy colonisation? Or is it more likely that there's nothing extraordinary about us, and we're a few hundred billion lives away from extinction?
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
Bah since youtube got its update its been fakking slow to load movies, what the hell is this shit. Btw cool vid
frankytap 1 year ago
Science kicks ass
Roflmeat 1 year ago
Pack up boys. We're heading there tomorrow
BahoUtot 1 year ago
This makes me wonder, is someone or something looking at Earth thinking the same thing we are about Gliese 581.
WTFsubzero 1 year ago
science kicks ass.
matreyia 1 year ago 78
@matreyia u sound like my physics teacher!
20501017 1 year ago
@matreyia it dose
Joe3561 1 year ago
@matreyia
It sure does!
Ratmaster100 11 months ago
Comment removed
garfieldthree 1 year ago
> You're quoting me "facts" from a science "fiction" writer
Look at my first post. I introduced it as an interesting concept. Nothing more.
Secondly, the entire trilogy explores things like the Fermi principle and Drakes equation using a sound scientific basis.
Thirdly, apart from ad hominem attacks, some of which suggest misunderstanding of the premise being voiced by Baxter, no-one has actually tried to explain what problem they have with it beyond 'you should pick up a maths book'.
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
@ByeCruelWorld
"If our living numbers were able to grow beyond quadrillions in space, you and I would be much more likely to exist then, not now. "
For this to be the case, you would have to believe that we (our consciousness) are waiting in some kind of limbo before conception. I am of the thought that our minds and personalitys, while shaped by our environments in certain ways are as a result of our physical structure. In which case, the chances of me being born in the future are zero.
Unlocktube 1 year ago
> For this to be the case, you would have to believe that we (our consciousness)
You're missing Baxter's statistical premise entirely. Forget all that other stuff I wrote when I was trying to rehash and re-explain again and again. Just find the post that starts...
"It's not my logic! I tracked down the origin for you..."
That is the best, simplest explanation of what Baxter is trying to say. It is purely a statistical statement. Nothing about the how or why of existence itself.
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
@ByeCruelWorld
Why so are you defending this logic so vehemently? I am not missing anything, your explanations are weak/misguided. The premise you are refering to, is only valid after the point at which we leave to planet to colonise others. It does not mean that because we were born on earth, we will never colonise the stars.
Unlocktube 1 year ago
> Why so are you defending this so vehemently?
THERE IS NOTHING TO DEFEND! It is a very, very simple statistical concept or premise to understand, voiced by a famous scifi writer. There is nothing wrong or illogical with it at all.
I'm just frustrated that people who are supposedly refuting it are also talking about biogenesis, sperm, births, consciousness, etc. That has NOTHING to do with anything Baxter said. YT is obviously not a good place to try to explain stuff in less than 500 chars.
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
> It does not mean that because we were born on earth,
> we will never colonise the stars.
Of course not! Statistics can't tell the future! I nor Baxter never said that. That's ridiculous! But statistically speaking, it means we are either in the first hundredth of humans to exist, or we are in the first trillionth of humans to exist.
Take that how you want. I've had enough of trying to explain the very simple implications of this to people who are intent on somehow misunderstanding it.
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
@ByeCruelWorld
You are going around in circles man.
"it means we are either in the first hundredth of humans to exist, or we are in the first trillionth of humans to exist." People find it easy to understand what a person is trying to say, as long as that person knows what they are trying to say. The above sentance means nothing.
I was quoting you by the way,
"Ergo, statistically speaking, either me and you have won the lottery, or humans will not colonise space. "
Who's confused?
Unlocktube 1 year ago
There are only two scenarios.
Either we are earthbound until extinction, which limits the number of humans that will ever exist. If this scenario is true, we are in the first hundredth of humans that will ever exist, which is statistically more likely than the next scenario...
If we colonise space, the number of humans that will ever exist is not limited. If this scenario is true, then we are in the first quadrillionth of humans to exist, which is statistically much more unlikely.
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's a diagram I created to help you understand what Baxter is getting at:
tinyurl [dot] com [slash] 286e2zm
Some of you are too wound up. It isn't a claim of any sort. It is a statistical idea; just a concept to think about, mull around and enjoy. Do we exist at a very special time and place in human history, in the blink before billions of years galaxy colonisation? Or is it more likely that there's nothing extraordinary about us, and we're a few hundred billion lives away from extinction?
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
Sorry but this seems to be a really stupid conversation. Your chances of existing are 100% your chances of exsting now are 100% and your chances of existing on earth now are 100%. Unless of course you are another one of my hallucination then your 50% a figment of my imagination and 50% chemically induced.
EvalDaemon 1 year ago
> and your chances of existing on earth now are 100%
Exactly. But given the total number of humans born (past *and* future) and the places that they will be born, and the time-scale in which they will be born, it would be statistically strange for you and I to be born now and on earth if humans did eventually colonise space. Whereas it would not be statistically strange if our population is going to be limited to 10 billion (due to the size of the planet) and we never do colonise space.
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
@ByeCruelWorld Given the total number of British born (past *and* future) and the places they will be born, and the time-scale in which they will be born, it would be statistically strange for a British to be born 2000 years ago AND in Britain if the British did eventually colonize 90% of the world by the 1600s. Whereas it would not be statistically strange if the British population is limited to 100,000 (due to the size of the island) and they never colonize 90% of the world.
garfieldthree 1 year ago
@ByeCruelWorld Your words, except with its subjects changed to fit the obvious fucking events that already happened. I hope you realized just how messed up your logic is.
garfieldthree 1 year ago
@garfieldthree
I think ByeCruelWorld is a troll. That or he has no idea what he is arguing. I wouldn't continue to waste your time trying to convince him.
eggkunt 1 year ago
It's not my logic! I tracked down the origin for you. It is from sci-fi writer Stephen Baxter, from 'Time' (part of a trilogy). It uses Bayes Theorem.
One more time, as simply as I possibly can:
If you believe humans will colonise the galaxy, then you must believe that you and I were born in the first trillionth or quadrillionth of all humans that will ever exist.
If earthbound until extinction, we are in the first HUNDREDTH of humans to ever exist.
The 2nd scenario is much more likely.
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
as long as im provided with a good ship enough food an a few sexy women to reproduce with ill take the trip :P
Frenzal88 1 year ago
I'm terribly sorry to break up the scientific debate for something this insignificant, but can anybody recognise that accent?
xuci111111 1 year ago
@xuci111111 European.
poopindaturd 1 year ago
> 200 planets with earths population, there is actually a 0.5%
> chance of you existing on earth (not 2%)
I wasn't expressing probability is percentages. However, I did get that wrong. 1/200 = 0.005 chance, not .002 as I typed previously; I just wasn't thinking. I got the other two examples correct though.
> but there is only a 0.5% chance of you existing on any other colonized planet
Yes, but a huge 95.5% chance of not being born on Earth!
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
> If we are to colonize space, it MUST start like this
That just illustrates that you still don't understand what is being statistically said. I'm not going to explain it again though.
All I can suggest is that you think about it like this: What are the chances of YOU being born NOW (this time) and HERE (this place), if instead of a paltry 100 billion earthbound humans ever existing before our demise, there are going to be quintillions of humans spread over the galaxy?
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
@ByeCruelWorld
To be honest, you should pick up a math book. You keep rambling on completely missing the point.
eggkunt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
> You keep rambling on completely missing the point
Well, nothing you've said leads me to believe you understand the premise or concept of the statement. It has nothing to do with the chances of you existing or not. It is with regard to the chances of you existing in a certain TIME AND PLACE given two drastically different scenarios of human populations, given that space colonisation would entail far, far, far greater time, place and number than an earthbound population.
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
also, the human reproduction system or dna could start to wear away like the clock stops ticking but we are still here, also how would u tell the time ? there would be no such thing as a clock in space so we would have to invent new ways to deal with time. time was originalally took from the time it takes the sun to circulate our earth so in space u cant tell the time.
Jman21UK 1 year ago
@Jman21UK YES YOU CAN MEASURE TIME IN SPACE.
TheCopaceticMan 1 year ago
right firstly this new youtube is shit an they cant keep anything simple. an i not anybody to say anything about our future to be honest who r any of us to say anything...but it would be amazing if we could live to see space. i would do anything to go out to different planets, maybe the human species is destined to evolve to such a high level that we will be gods ourselves. wat will your average human look like in 50000.000 yrs??
Jman21UK 1 year ago
Its Rly quite pointless wen ppl try searchin for 'earth-like planets' with the intent of migrating there in the future..
Wat they should be doing more of, is researching New technologies that will help them travel through space Much quicker for When & IF they find a planet dat is 20+ light years away (such as the one talked abt in this vid).
Normal combustion engines just wont cut it in space & nobody in their right mind would want to spend generations in a spaceship 'trying' to get there..!
TheHeavensReject 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
> I'd like to know how you come up with that
I didn't 'come up' with it. It is a statistical concept.
> The chances of us existing have nothing to do
> with the potential of humans to colonize space
You haven't understood the statistical statement. The chance of you and I existing NOW is quite large if human population does not keep increasing exponentially. If our living numbers were able to grow beyond quadrillions in space, you and I would be much more likely to exist then, not now.
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
Maybe I can put it another way for you. If humans colonized space, only a few hundred billion would have ever been born on earth, compared to the quadrillions or more who colonised other planets in the galaxy. So being born on earth is statistically strange. To be born on earth, the original planet, is like winning a lottery, given the huge number of humans that would not be born on Earth.
Ergo, statistically speaking, either me and you have won the lottery, or humans will not colonise space.
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
@ByeCruelWorld
Even though you don't understand the statistics, this is basically the argument, but as I've said, it's nonsense because of exactly the same reason that the chances of the first multi-cellular organism arising are so low and yet it happened. If we are to colonize space, it MUST start like this, there has to be a starting planet from which the life arises. It can't be any other way and that makes the "statistics" of your existence irrelevant.
eggkunt 1 year ago
@ByeCruelWorld WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SAYING? I am able to understand a LOT of absract ideas, yet I have no clue what you are saying. So to get this striaght, if we colonize space, the chance two different people (non-twins) born on the same planet in a relatively close time period is less than if we didn't colonize space. And I am taking out of consideration each sperm cell chance of fertilizing a egg.
TheCopaceticMan 1 year ago
@ByeCruelWorld
You don't understand statistics. What you're doing by saying your chance of existing is 1 is that you MUST exist. Now when you say there are 200 planets with earths population, there is actually a 0.5% chance of you existing on earth (not 2%), but there is only a 0.5% chance of you existing on any other colonized planet. So there is equally low chance of you existing on any of them. And yet, from your assumption, the total chance of you existing is 1 and so you MUST exist on one
eggkunt 1 year ago
@ByeCruelWorld You don't know shit about statistics. Your arguments are absurd. To be blunt, the odds of you coming into existence is the odds of your dad fucking your mom on the day you were conceived (denoted x) multiplied by 1/the number of sperms in your dad's body at the time of conception. x is a function of PAST variables which brought your mom and dad into the same room. It has nothing to do with what the population is in the future, or what planet they end up on.
garfieldthree 1 year ago
Scientists have always thought the bottom of the ocean was inhospitable yet we found animals there (beyond the suns rays)
So what is stopping living creatures on other planet from breathing gases other than oxygen... maybe they dont breathe at all, maybe they absorb heat to stay alive? For all we know Jupiter could harbour life... Think out of the box; there has to be different metals/minerals out there we havent heard of, as well as some forms of life, right?
leaf16nut 1 year ago
Water mean oxygen.... Which could mean the ability for us to live on it... But what do I know...
FlUdDeStRoYeR94 1 year ago
I wanna see how they look like..
Blueknightex 1 year ago
how do they know the composition of the planets? will they send a space probe?
darkbluemars 1 year ago
@darkbluemars
spectroscopy, basically the light that bounces off the planet has signature patters in it that tell you what the atoms it bounced off of were. you can tell, for the most part, what a planet is made up of just by looking at it.
eggkunt 1 year ago
@eggkunt wow thanks
darkbluemars 1 year ago
eventually the whole of space will collapse on itself, we will neva colinise space anyway.
Jman21UK 1 year ago
@Jman21UK
oh, and you know this for a fact do you? current estimates say that the universe will go on expanding forever, not collapse back in on itself. and who are you to say we wont colonize space? we have come this far in only a few hundred years, how can you be so pessimistic when we still have millions, at least, to go on this planet.
eggkunt 1 year ago
> who are you to say we wont colonize space?
Here's an interesting concept. On the planet right now are more living humans than the total who have ever existed. Space colonisation would mean continued exponential growth. If quadrillions of future humans are going to exist, then the chance of you and I existing at this particular point in time becomes utterly minuscule.
Whereas if our population stays stable and earth-bound, the chance of you and I being born on earth is 1.
ByeCruelWorld 1 year ago
@ByeCruelWorld I've heard this argument before and it's absurd. The chances of us existing have nothing to do with the potential of humans to colonize space. Also, evolution does not stop at humans. Once there are different colonies on different planets, evolutionary drift will continue and there will probably even be speciation, no more humans. In this light, I ask you: What are the chances of the first mutli-cellular organism arising? And yet it happened. The argument you present is nonsense.
eggkunt 1 year ago
@ByeCruelWorld Another thing: the chances of us being born on earth if life stays on earth is not 1 if colonization makes the chances "utterly minuscule". I'd like to know how you come up with that.
eggkunt 1 year ago