Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-07-2015, 02:46 PM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 01:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. That's just too stupid for a discussion. A "humanoid" has some relationshio to a human (ie Homo spaiens). AAny life form elsewhere would have NO relationship to humans.

But what's a "relationship"? We share 98% (??) of our DNA with the great apes. I'd guess we'd call them humanoid.

But would we apply similar criteria to extraterrestrial creatures or would we go with certain similarities such as "upright", "bipedal", "brain in top of head on top of body" etc? What if the idea of "chromosone" didn't exist for these individuals?

I'm in the middle of moving house and my dictionaries are somewhere in boxes. But Wiktionary tells me that "-oid" means

"Of similar form to, but not the same as. Having the likeness of"

Do you want a reference for this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2015, 03:45 PM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 02:46 PM)jockmcdock Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 01:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. That's just too stupid for a discussion. A "humanoid" has some relationshio to a human (ie Homo spaiens). AAny life form elsewhere would have NO relationship to humans.

But what's a "relationship"? We share 98% (??) of our DNA with the great apes. I'd guess we'd call them humanoid.

But would we apply similar criteria to extraterrestrial creatures or would we go with certain similarities such as "upright", "bipedal", "brain in top of head on top of body" etc? What if the idea of "chromosone" didn't exist for these individuals?

I'm in the middle of moving house and my dictionaries are somewhere in boxes. But Wiktionary tells me that "-oid" means

"Of similar form to, but not the same as. Having the likeness of"

Do you want a reference for this?

A humanoid (/ˈhjuːmənɔɪd/; from English human and -oid "resembling") is something that has an appearance resembling a human being. The earliest recorded use of the term, in 1870, referred to indigenous peoples in areas colonized by Europeans.

That's what the word means.

It's likely life in other places will be bilaterally symmetrical, as well as have some encoding system for information. How do we know that WE do not resemble some other, much more numerous, life form ? ''Humanoid" is specific, but earth-centric. We don't know yet. BUT, we do know, that life arises spontaneously, and some of the probable pathways that it happened.

And no, I only need references from people who pull shit out of their ass, regularly.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2015, 04:00 PM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2015 04:17 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(08-07-2015 10:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 05:27 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  10^10 stars in a galaxy. 10^10 galaxies in the universe. What are the odds that those 200 conditions didn't occur again in 10^100 chances?
That's not correct.
When multiplying exponentials you add the exponent.
X^a times X^b = X^(a+b)

So 10^10 times 10^10 = 10^20

But I read somewhere that there are 10^22 stars in the observable universe which is 100 times more stars than there are grains of sand on Earth.

Thanks for the math lesson sonny boy. But maybe you should double check your math before you call mine incorrect. It's 10^(10^10)=10^100. Don't know how you came up with 10^10 * 10^10 but that formulation is wrong. But thanks for playing.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2015, 04:09 PM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
'A "humanoid" has some relationship to a human (ie Homo sapiens).

A humanoid is something that has an appearance resembling a human being.'

These two statements are not compatible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2015, 04:14 PM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 03:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's likely life in other places will be bilaterally symmetrical

Got a reference for this or are you pulling it out of your arse?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2015, 04:59 PM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2015 05:04 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 04:00 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 10:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That's not correct.
When multiplying exponentials you add the exponent.
X^a times X^b = X^(a+b)

So 10^10 times 10^10 = 10^20

But I read somewhere that there are 10^22 stars in the observable universe which is 100 times more stars than there are grains of sand on Earth.

Thanks for the math lesson sonny boy. But maybe you should double check your math before you call mine incorrect. It's 10^(10^10)=10^100. Don't know how you came up with 10^10 * 10^10 but that formulation is wrong. But thanks for playing.
Why did you do 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 10?


If we have 3 galaxies and on average a galaxy has 10 to the power of 10 stars then we have 3 times 10 to the power of 10
We don't have 3 to the power of 10 to the power of 10.

So if we have 10^10 galaxies and on average we have 10^10 stars per galaxy then we have 10^10 times 10^10 which would be 10^20

From this website http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_...e_Universe
Quote: For the Universe, the galaxies are our small representative volumes, and there are something like 10^11 to 10^12 stars in our Galaxy, and there are perhaps something like 10^11 or 10^12 galaxies.

With this simple calculation you get something like 10^22 to 10^24 stars in the Universe.

or from this website http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy...are-there/
Quote:astronomers put current estimates of the total stellar population at roughly 70 billion trillion (7 x 10^22)

Or from this website http://www.space.com/26078-how-many-star...there.html
Quote:Kornreich used a very rough estimate of 10 trillion galaxies in the universe. Multiplying that by the Milky Way's estimated 100 billion stars results in a large number indeed: 100 octillion stars, or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, or a "1" with 29 zeros after it.
This above one has 10,000,000,000,000 = 1x10^13 galaxies in the universe.
and 100,000,000,000 = 1x10^11 stars per galaxy
and their result is 1x10^29 (their math is a little off they should have got 1x10^24) but still this is much much lower than 1x10^100

from this website http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3775
Quote:There are about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in space, or about 10 raised to the 21 power, roughly.

...
There are about 10 billion galaxies in the observable universe! The number of stars in a galaxy varies, but assuming an average of 100 billion stars per galaxy means that there are about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that’s 1 billion trillion) stars in the observable universe!
So here they have 10,000,000,000 = 10^10 galaxies
100,000,000,000 = 10^11 stars per galaxy
And their result is 10^21 which is 10^(10+11)


EDIT:
If you were to calculate the amount of atoms in the universe you would get a number much smaller than 10^100
from this website http://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms...-universe/
Quote:At this level, it is estimated that the there are between 10^78 to 10^82 atoms in the known, observable universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
09-07-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
Seventy billion trillion.

It is hard to get one's head around it.

Thanks to many of you guys my education improves a lot.

I am very grateful. Smile

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2015, 06:34 PM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 09:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 08:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  When we talk about life in the universe, we usually refer to any kind of life - anything at all. If we are talking about other intelligent life, then we specifically say "intelligent life" so that there is no confusion.

The probability that life of some kind exists somewhere other than Earth is a near certainty given the number of possible places.

It can only be near certain, if we can gather what the probability of life arising at all would be. It could just as well be true all the conditions and factors for life of any sort, not only to be able to exist, but also arising on this planet is astronomically small, that all the possible places couldn't even compete with it. Most places are extremely hostile to life existing on it. And if there were some that weren't, that doesn't particularly mean that life would inevitably rise on it. I don't think we can be certain in any way shape of form about this. We can speculate that it's possible, but not with any real confidence one way or the other. Even if we're not speaking of humanoid life, which is far more unlikely.

That's not substantially different than what I said, except that the number of places life could exist is, quite literally, astronomically large. The search for extra-solar planets is turning them up by the hundreds and we've only just started.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2015, 06:38 PM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2015 06:42 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 04:14 PM)jockmcdock Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 03:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's likely life in other places will be bilaterally symmetrical

Got a reference for this or are you pulling it out of your arse?

I pulled it out of my ass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_biology

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2015, 06:39 PM
RE: Mathmatical argument against life elsewhere in the universe
(09-07-2015 05:10 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Seventy billion trillion.

It is hard to get one's head around it.

Thanks to many of you guys my education improves a lot.

I am very grateful. Smile

That's a sextillion as I recall. So there are 600-700 sextillion stars.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: