2013/11/07 17:06:43
SteveStrummerUK
mike_mccue
drewfx1
SteveStrummerUK
mike_mccue
I heard a presentation recently that pointed out that, when you consider the age of the universe and our planet, the amount of time it took for life to appear and learn to send signals and space craft out into the universe was an incredibly short span of time.



Off the top of my head...
  • The Universe is estimated to be around 13.8 billions years old
  • The Earth is estimated to be around 4.6 billion years old
  • Life on Earth is believed to have started around 3.6 billion years ago
  • Life on Earth has existed for approximately 26% of the age of the Universe



I think the presentation was designed to show why "we're special".
 
Perhaps we're special because for supposedly intelligent life forms, we don't much care about, you know, facts and stuff - at least if it doesn't suit our purposes. 
 
Or perhaps the ability to create one's own facts is a special sign of a higher intelligence? 



You should probably see the presentation for yourself instead of deriving the meaning of it from hearsay promoted on the part of someone who has relayed what impressions they took from it. I think the idea was more about an acceleration of evolution rather than total span of time and I did a bad job of explaining that. 
 
 
 
While I was checking the 3.7 billion figure I noticed that many of the same scientists that have determined that life on earth is 3.5-3.7 billions years old also feel that it is possible that life in the universe might be 10 billion years old... a possible 6.5 billion year head start isn't trivial. Imagine what kind of iPhones we'll be using 3 billion years from now.
 
Additionally, Many of the folks that have determined that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old haven't figured out what the universe was 13.9 billion years ago... while other folks figure that it was probably some kind of universe.
 
best regards,
mike



Well, I'm sorry Mike, but I still don't understand what you meant
 
You must understand it though, because you obviously attempted to make some sort of point by posting it.
 
I don't get why you'd just make that statement in isolation, without adding some explanation of why you posted it. Or if it was directly in response to some other post in this thread.
 
It seems a bit like the 'old' McQ, who'd say something vague and ambiguous and then sit back to see what reaction it garnered before coming down on one side of the fence.
 
So, in the interest of the continuance of an intellectual discussion, what point were you trying to make by saying:
 
mike_mccue
I heard a presentation recently that pointed out that, when you consider the age of the universe and our planet, [<font]the amount of time it took for life to appear and learn to send signals and space craft out into the universe was an incredibly short span of time.

 
Or was it just some uninteresting trivia based on some half-random googling and then hoping that someone like me, for example, who has actually studied evolutionary biology and taken a long and deep interest in cosmology, might be fooled into thinking you had an intelligent or relevant point to make.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2013/11/07 17:25:54
soens
craigb
Not sure what everyone is on about, we should be searching for intelligent life HERE first!




That would take... well.... intelligence to accomplish. And we aints found it yet.
2013/11/07 17:28:52
soens
UbiquitousBubba
Oh, here's another thing.  Is it possible that aliens are using mirrors to make the universe seem larger than it really is?  Why does that thought still make me feel smaller?




Smoke and mirrors, mind you! ....
2013/11/07 19:06:17
drewfx1
SteveStrummerUKWell, I'm sorry Mike, but I still don't understand what you meant
 
You must understand it though, because you obviously attempted to make some sort of point by posting it.

 
Maybe you don't understand because you and Mike are on different sides of a new threshold in Big History?  
 

I don't get why you'd just make that statement in isolation, without adding some explanation of why you posted it. Or if it was directly in response to some other post in this thread.

 
I blame the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
2013/11/07 19:15:50
SteveStrummerUK
 
Well, maybe.
 
I just watched the YouTube clip Mike posted, and I still have absolutely no idea whatsoever why it's relevant, nor why the comments he made because he watched it are anything other than a piece of interesting trivia (even though I still argue that what he said is fundamentally incorrect).
 
In fact, I'm a little more feckin' confused than I was before I watched it.
 
All it appears to be is a (very well presented) compact history of the Universe and life on earth, and specifically how the processes of life work to temporarily reverse the overall flow of entropy in nature.
 
How it's relevant to "Life Elsewhere" is still very much beyond my feeble mental capacity.
2013/11/07 19:22:51
drewfx1
My impression was that Mike was just posting some of his visceral reactions to the presentation.
 
To which we then had our own visceral reactions.
 
Or something like that.
2013/11/08 04:37:21
mudgel
Just remembered why I don't much come here.
2013/11/08 08:47:35
The Maillard Reaction
 

 

 
 
2013/11/08 08:59:36
Shambler
You may have seen this, interesting thoughts on how we are made of the most common elements in the universe which makes life elsewhere highly probable.
 
Also, we share 98% of our DNA with chimps and look how much more intelligent we are.
 
Now imagine an alien having totally different DNA and how much more intelligent ( or indeed less ) that may make them to the extent that they don't really recognise us 'chimps' as something worth communicating to.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LGQrVSxPvg
2013/11/08 09:33:53
Rimshot
I just saw this headline today:
 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/hubble_spots_lawnsprinkler_asteroid_that_has_boffins_baffled/
 
The word "freakish" caught my eye.
 
 
© 2026 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account