Life elsewhere? Who cares?

[Stargazer]

I most certainly agree with the stuff NASA does, like the exploration of the solar system (especially after Bush's new Exploration Vision.) But, even the search for Earth like planets will be part of this Vision programme. Some SETI projects are funded by private financers, for example Paul Allen, who is right now funding a large array radio telescope, consisting of 350 antennas á 6 m if I remember correctly. This is built by the SETI Institute. There are other projects around the world, but I don't know enough about them.

[iacobus]

Okay, here's what we don't know:

1. How old is the universe?

2. How far away are the many stars we look at?

3. What is the matter that makes up our universe?

4. And if we enter into the realms of physics, wow!

So, what good has been derived from all this investigation of the far away places?

Compare this to the results of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs of the 60's.Yes, I know many have said all we gained were a bunch of moon rocks that cost x million dollars per kilogram. But a little investigation shows there have been many advantageous fallouts.

That's my point. Spend money on those things that will advance us NOW, not on some far flung search, that even if proven to be successful, won't make a damn bit of difference to us. We will all be long dead before any answer comes streaming across the vast open space. And with the run-away population of the earth, in two hundred years no one will care if alien life forms answered or not. Everyone will be trying to find some beans to eat.

 

BUT, and this is a big but, I thank you all for you inputs. You have certainly given me some things to think about. I may even change my mind a bit, especially since I found out the funding isn't so horrendous.

Again, thanks for the inputs. I'm going to go crawl into a comfortable cave and ponder on these things.

Iacobus

[BlameTheEx]

In principle, the higher the gravity, the smaller the lifeforms. A tree will grow as high as it can to steal the light from it's shorter neighbours. The limit on its height is gravity. Too high and it can't support its own weight. Less gravity, less weight.

 

Of course this is not true if the lifeforms are supported by water or some other fluid.

 

Gravity limits the maximum size of lifeforms, but evolution favours the small. Small lifeforms on Earth have shorter lifecycles, and greater actual numbers. Both effects mean that smaller lifeforms evolve faster. Any large lifeform is doomed. It will eventually be replaced by a large version of something small that has out-evolved it. I dare say we will one day be replaced by oversized rodents.

 

Still, while a small lifeform can increase in size rapidly over only a few generations (as we are doing right now. Consider the smaller size of our ancestors, or even our parents), it can't help being badly designed for size. Before evolution can correct the faults that stop it to reaching ultimate size, it too will face competition from a suddenly larger version of something that has evolved advantages in matters other than size.

 

It has always been assumed that the largest dinosaurs plodded along because anything faster would snap their bones. I wonder at this. Perhaps they had better bones than the mammals that replaced them. The mammals of that time were never big. They probably never had the pressure to evolve for strength of bones that the dinosaurs did. The dinosaurs are gone, and mammals replaced them, but the elephant is a lot smaller than the dinosaurs best. Strong bones just wasn't enough of an advantage to save the dinosaurs.

[Tormod]

Okay, here's what we don't know:

1. How old is the universe?

 

Last estimate: 13,7 billion years

 

2. How far away are the many stars we look at?

 

This is indeed something we know very well. Calculating the distance of stars is easy.

 

3. What is the matter that makes up our universe?

 

We know a lot. There are a lot of things we don't understand. Do you suggest then that we stop researching it?

 

4. And if we enter into the realms of physics, wow!

 

How are the 3 points above NOT related to physics?

 

So, what good has been derived from all this investigation of the far away places?

 

I suggest reading up a bit before you ask questions like that.

 

Some book recommendations:

John D. Barrow: Origin of the Universe, Impossibility, Constants of Nature

Marcus Chown: The Magic Furnace (about the evolution of stars)

Fred Adams: The five ages of the universe

Brian Green: The Fabric of the Cosmos

 

Spend money on those things that will advance us NOW, not on some far flung search, that even if proven to be successful, won't make a damn bit of difference to us.

 

This is of course a valid opinion, but sadly not supported by facts. Studying objects in the universe, and the origins of the universe, teaches us a lot about ourselves. Particle physics is an important aspect of understanding the unverse, and vice versa - how we build superconductors and study bose-einstein condensates are examples of areas where knowledge about the elements in the universe come into play.

 

We will all be long dead before any answer comes streaming across the vast open space. And with the run-away population of the earth, in two hundred years no one will care if alien life forms answered or not. Everyone will be trying to find some beans to eat.

 

As opposed to you I do not see the study of the universe (as in cosmology and astronomy) to be a constant search for life, but a quest for understanding. It is a study that is as important as archaeology, history, mathematics, social science, biology. It provides us with benefits all the time. By studying the universe we are studying our past and present, and perhaps also our future. We learn where we come from and what our place in the cosmos is.

 

Again, thanks for the inputs. I'm going to go crawl into a comfortable cave and ponder on these things.

 

Just make sure you come back out and keep up the discussion. ;)

[Stargazer]

Okay, here's what we don't know:

1. How old is the universe?

2. How far away are the many stars we look at?

3. What is the matter that makes up our universe?

4. And if we enter into the realms of physics, wow!

So, what good has been derived from all this investigation of the far away places?

I have to admit that SETI has not provided terribly many answers to those questions, but astronomy has. For example we do know now that the universe is somewhere around 13.7 billion years, that stars are 4.5 to several billions of lightyears away, for example. As for what makes up our universe, we know some of it, but probably not most of it. Going to the moon wont answer that question (that is, what is dark matter, etc.), but to study the universe on a large scale just might.

 

Compare this to the results of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs of the 60's.Yes, I know many have said all we gained were a bunch of moon rocks that cost x million dollars per kilogram. But a little investigation shows there have been many advantageous fallouts.

That's my point. Spend money on those things that will advance us NOW, not on some far flung search, that even if proven to be successful, won't make a damn bit of difference to us. We will all be long dead before any answer comes streaming across the vast open space. And with the run-away population of the earth, in two hundred years no one will care if alien life forms answered or not. Everyone will be trying to find some beans to eat.

Since SETI, long range astronomy, and the study of our solar system all provide scientific payoff, I suspect that the return you're looking for is technological? That is, going to the moon will make our technology advance more rapidly etc. But I would like to see scientific study of all the universe, because it will give us both scientific as well as technological returns.

[iacobus]

Well, I'll mosey on to my cave in a minute.

 

Last estimate: 13,7 billion years

Estimate only- no one really knows. There is much disagreement on this subject.

This is indeed something we know very well. Calculating the distance of stars is easy.

I'm afraid not. When you read that some galaxy or whatever is so many light years away, that is just an estimate. Looking further into the matter will reveal that most distant objects are given in a range from x light years to y light years.

We know a lot. There are a lot of things we don't understand. Do you suggest then that we stop researching it?

We know a lot of what? What we know now, wouldn't make a pimple on an elephant's butt. We just think we know a lot. And give up research. Where did you ever get the idea that I would be for that? Looking out some fifty, sixty million light years and see a star wobble, and with great elation state, "There's a planet there!" Again, who cares?

How are the 3 points above NOT related to physics?

Oh, oh! I seemed to have left out a word there. Quantum... My humble apologies. ;)

I suggest reading up a bit before you ask questions like that.

Arrrrghhhhhh! That hurt! You are suggesting something here?

As opposed to you I do not see the study of the universe (as in cosmology and astronomy) to be a constant search for life, but a quest for understanding. It is a study that is as important as archaeology, history, mathematics, social science, biology. It provides us with benefits all the time. By studying the universe we are studying our past and present, and perhaps also our future. We learn where we come from and what our place in the cosmos is.

Hmmmm. Yes, we do disagree here. We are just one species here on our planet. We are systematically destroying our own little spaceship. We are not taking the proper steps to protect it. Archaeology, history, mathematics, social science, and biology can and will aid us in making amends for our past failures. Looking at a star wobble won't.

 

With that said, I gotta' go. I should be able to sign on again the 13th or 14th of December. That is, if my cave doesn't get flooded, or a mudslide doesn't fill it up, or an earthquake doesn't..... oh you know.

 

Best Regards

Iacobus

[Tormod]

Hm...to quote Louis Armstrong: "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them."

 

You seem hell-bent on not accepting that astronomy and cosmology are in fact scientific areas. Your argumentation makes me wonder if you see the scientists in this field as ignoramuses who have no clue as to what they do.

 

Well, I think I've said what I can in this discussion so I'll slouch on to some other topic.

[Tim_Lou]

imagine the universe as a world.

if we dont advance, the others will.

 

and eventually one day, aliens might come to us and kill us.

just like the native americans.

 

so, get ready for this universe!

[TINNY]

the key here is to find a right balance for expenditure on astronomy and other research areas. becoz no doubt astronomy is important to "get ready for the universe" but some of it is inisgnificant compared to other discoveries that could have been made with the same amount of investment on other areas.

[Tormod]

... but some of it is inisgnificant compared to other discoveries that could have been made with the same amount of investment on other areas.

 

Mention ONE single area of science which could not be considered less important than another. It is all a matter of who gets to prioritize, and who has the money. ;)

[TINNY]

i'm hard pressed. is this something philosophical? or mere factual?

what's meant by "important" here? is it truth? or practicalness?

It is all a matter of who gets to prioritize, and who has the money.

i don't understand this part

[Tormod]

My point is that no matter how much someone favors some area of research, there will be people who think that other fields are more important.

 

So we get fruitless discussions like the one in this topic where the original poster doesn't want to discuss *why* we study the universe, but instead tells us why we shouldn't, because there are more important things (to him) which deserves more attention. He seems to believe that all astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology is performed to look for life. He denies that the thoughts and ideas we provide as reasons are at all valid, and laughs at attempts to explain why we find it important.

 

Your comment above, Tinny, was good and I agree with you. Some areas will always appear to be of less important. But it is all in the eye of the beholder.

 

However, the people who has power and money gets to decide which research can be pursued and which cannot - either by making things illegal (ie, stem cell research), stopping the funds (like when SETI lost their public funding), or by allocating funds (Richard Branson and the X-Prize is one example).

 

Why do people study things? Why do we study the universe? I'm pretty sure that if we ask each and every one of the people who do so, we will get a different answer from each of them. They all have their agendas, their purpose, their goals. I have deep respect for scientists who decide to study the things we don't know and don't understand, and who try to find out how the mysteriuos universe around us is constructed, and how we fit into it.

[TINNY]

tormod suddenly gets emotional when someone ridicules his area of interest. ;)

[Stargazer]

Well, if we don't know much about the universe (we do, but not compared to how much there is to know), then that would certainly be reason to study it more...?

[TINNY]

Well, if we don't know much about the universe (we do, but not compared to how much there is to know), then that would certainly be reason to study it more...?

you can apply the same argument in other research areas too.

[Tormod]

tormod suddenly gets emotional when someone ridicules his area of interest. ;)

 

I don't see ridicule but rather ignorance, and that tends to tickle my emotional tangents. And my areas of interest are many...cosmology happens to be top of the list. "Life in the universe" is just a subset of that, really.

 

Or like Hobbes (as in "Calvin and Hobbes") said, "Maybe the best proof of intelligence in the universe is that nobody has come to visit us yet". ;)

[Tormod]

you can apply the same argument in other research areas too.

 

In fact, it is the very reason there is such a thing as "science".