2012 Conspiracies..

[Hopalong X]

fi (intelligent life) if it includes Earth or not = 0

So N is zero.

 

[townsbg]

And, oh, Haha supposedly the world ends on the 21st on October so thats a week from now (When this message was posted. .)

Come again?:sarc:

 

[linnemeyerhere]

Well combine that with the Mayan calendar predicting the end of times as 12/21/12 and it would appear that we don't have to worry about paying all these bills and taxes we've amassed.

"Finally we've found away to solve the World wide debt crisis"

 

[Imperfect1]

fi (intelligent life) if it includes Earth or not = 0

So N is zero.

Nope, I don't think so -- because even assuming the Drake equation is accurate, which is only an assumption, there are 2 factors the Drake equation doesn't take into account: first it makes assumptions according to the amount of knowledge/technology we currently have. There is no way to know what will be discovered in the future that will significantly alter our ability to explore space. And second, the number of stars is virtually infinite, including not only all the stars that currently exist but also all of the new stars (some of which will have planets that could support life) that will continue to be created in the future. . . FOREVER

 

[Barman58]

Actually the Drake equation takes into account the technology level where possible but is based on what chance we have of contacting another civilization at the current time

Also assuming that you believe the "Big Bang" theory of universal evolution there are not an infinite number of stars and they will not always be produced - The "Big Bang" universe has a beginning, continues for a time and then ends

 

[bigmck]

Actually the Drake equation takes into account the technology level where possible but is based on what chance we have of contacting another civilization at the current time

Also assuming that you believe the "Big Bang" theory of universal evolution there are not an infinite number of stars and they will not always be produced - The "Big Bang" universe has a beginning, continues for a time and then ends

I am not too familiar with the Drake equation, but I am definately a fan of the Big Bang Theory.

 

[vspeck23]

okay i have a theory that the sun will burn out and implode creating a black hole and our whole universe ( milky way ) gets sucked in and we eventually die because of no sun or something.


I'm not sure though that stars create a black- hole?? i only know that planets do if they implode ??

and 2012 i don't think will happen because people just got hyped over the movie

 

[Golden]

I'm not sure though that stars create a black- hole?? i only know that planets do if they implode ??

Black holes are typically formed when a star (our Sun for example) runs out of fuel, collapsing under its own mass. Strictly speaking, a black hole is any stellar object whose gravitational attraction is so strong, that not even light can escape it.

 

[seekermeister]

vspeck23,

Theory...a word to put the face of reason on imagination. As superstitions are without foundations, theories have foundations of clay.

 

[vspeck23]

hmm well thats what i believe lol and yeah its not really a theory lol just dont have wide range of vocab

 

[Imperfect1]

Actually the Drake equation takes into account the technology level where possible but is based on what chance we have of contacting another civilization at the current time

Also assuming that you believe the "Big Bang" theory of universal evolution there are not an infinite number of stars and they will not always be produced - The "Big Bang" universe has a beginning, continues for a time and then ends

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because as you said, the Drake equation only makes predictions based on what is known at the present time. The Drake equation theory can't possibly know what in the future, will be discovered that could change everything regarding our current limitations on space travel.

And, just for the record, no I don't believe in the Big Bang theory at all. A universe full of cosmic material didn't just "magically appear" out of the blue, at the exact point in time that the supposed Big Bang happened. All that cosmic material had to have come from somewhere, and it had to have been created beforehand for the Big Bang explosion to have happened --- so, to me, logically speaking, the Big Bang could not possibly have been the absolute start of the universe.

Also, I could be wrong about this, but I think that the Big Bang theory came into existence before the science world got a real grasp on the meaning and implications of the cause and effects of black holes. Had the Big Bang theorists had the information that we have now, the Big Bang theory itself might not have even taken hold as one of the major theories of the 'start' of the universe.

 

[Golden]

Laplace first postulated about gravitational fields strong enough to cause light not to escape from them in the 18th century. So the idea of black holes has been around for some time, well before the Big Bang theory.

In one respect you are correct Imperfect, our current knowledge of physics, especially gravity, at the very small scale prevents us from understanding what preceeded the Big Bang. In laymans terms : the Big Bang theory came to be when Hubble was able to observe and prove (through red shifting) that the Universe is still expanding. Reversing this observation leads us to recognise that if everything is exapanding, it must have expanded from somewhere....

A great debate.

 

[z3r010]

Harold Camping has said the world will end on Friday October 21st, so all you folks that believe the world will end in 2012 will be sorely disappointed

 

[Hopalong X]

Harold Camping has said the world will end on Friday October 21st, so all you folks that believe the world will end in 2012 will be sorely disappointed

I'm going to miss my German chocolate Birthday cake.

 

[bigmck]

And, just for the record, no I don't believe in the Big Bang theory at all. A universe full of cosmic material didn't just "magically appear" out of the blue, at the exact point in time that the supposed Big Bang happened. All that cosmic material had to have come from somewhere, and it had to have been created beforehand for the Big Bang explosion to have happened --- so, to me, logically speaking, the Big Bang could not possibly have been the absolute start of the universe.

Aside from the Religious explanation, do you have any other theory since you are not a Big Bang believer?

 

[seekermeister]

And, just for the record, no I don't believe in the Big Bang theory at all. A universe full of cosmic material didn't just "magically appear" out of the blue, at the exact point in time that the supposed Big Bang happened. All that cosmic material had to have come from somewhere, and it had to have been created beforehand for the Big Bang explosion to have happened --- so, to me, logically speaking, the Big Bang could not possibly have been the absolute start of the universe.

Aside from the Religious explanation, do you have any other theory since you are not a Big Bang believer?

Perhaps because a religious explanation is more rational than a big dud theory...depending on the religion.

 

[Wishmaster]

I forget where it was that I read it, but it claimed the Big Bang being only partially correct.
That it didnt just happen and form all we know today, but rather happens often and regularly.

According to the source (I forget what it was now) Was that the Big bang did occur, but that it isnt the first time.
Essentially, the Universe expands to a certain point, then collapses in on itself.
Then, the big bang happens and it starts expanding again.
Like a hearbeat that billions and billions of years between beats.

The cycle repeats over and over.


They know the universe is expanding, but not sure how this idea was brought about.
they say theres evedince to prove it, but not sure what.
Intersting theory though.

 

[seekermeister]

The only reason that they included the cyclic bang in their theory, is because that is all that they could imagine to avoid having to explain what existed before the bang, and what caused it to happen in the first place. There is no evidence at all to support the idea of the cycles. Actually, there is no evidence to support any kind of bang, except cosmic dust and the idea of an expanding universe, but I question both of those ideas.

 

[Golden]

They know the universe is expanding, but not sure how this idea was brought about.
they say theres evedince to prove it, but not sure what.
Intersting theory though.

The evidence for an expanding or inflationary universe are Hubble's observations I mentioned earlier. He examined several galaxies and was able to observe that the light theu emit is red-shifted - the wavelength of the light is stretched out. This happens when objects are accelerating away from one one another. Hubble deduced that these galaxies are accelerating away from us very rapidly leading to the inflationary view of the universe or multiverse. Subsequent to Hubble's original observations, thousands of galaxies have been studied, and in almost every case, the light they emit is red-shifted. This is clear, unequivocal, observable evidence that the universe is inflating/expanding.

You may not realise this, but you experience a form of red-shifting everyday, but with the sound. Imagine yourself standing by the side of the road and a car is approaching you. The sound waves from the car are compressed as the car races towards you, and the frequency of the sound increases. Once the car passes you, and continues down the road, the sound waves become stretched out relative to your posoition at the side of the road, and the frequency decreases. We call this the Doppler effect. Red-shifting of light waves is the equivalent of the Doppler effect in sound waves.

Ironically, the first proponent of the inflationary view of the universe was Lemaitre, a Catholic priest in the 1920's. He proposed that the red-shifting observed in nebulae were due to the expansion of the universe. The British physicist Hoyle first coined the term "Big Bang" which is also ironic since he was its greatest detractor. The Roman Catholic church declared in 1952 that the Big Bang is their accepted view of the creation of the universe.

 

[seekermeister]

Yes, the red-shift theory existed long before any Hubble observations. It can be observed even from regular observatories here on Earth. However, the cause for the shift is nothing more than theory, and can only be associated to sonic shifts by extrapolation. Whether the red-shift is true or not, it does not provide a solid foundation for the big bang.