vivaciousvivi:

But then again, what we humans define as "basic necessities " for lifeforms to thrive upon may not be what another planet billions of lightyears away may define it. A dark planet for example (a planet without an illuminating star like the sun, may have complex lifeforms thriving who may have appendages, exoskeletons or whatever that requires the absence of light, or water for that matter. They may not even have a spoken language as we define it here, yet they can communicate. Limbs, but have their own ability to be mobile etc.
What may seem "normal" here should not be viewed as "abnormal" elsewhere amply because we have restricted our levels of definitions.
It may sound paradoxical as I am a Christian but I believe in the possibility of complex lifeforms currently existing in other planets not weighed down by man's definition of basic requirements for life.

Jimmyo3:
Are you refering to NASA's Blue Beam Project? Which plans to fake the second coming of Christ?

wtfCode:
have u watched the movie 'The One' starring jet li.
it explains ur topic better.

there's another you somewhere in the universe, not just in a universe, both also in a group of universes called 'multiverse'.

Crazy huh

just live ur life.

meccuno:
I don't think we are alone. The universe is just too big to be conquered. To conquer it is to become God which is very impossible. What I am actually against is these scientist trying to send out signals to the unknown and we become invaded by advanced beings and made to farm yam and cocoa....heard a space ship was sent to pluto to take pictures!!! Imagine the number of years it took. Mean while, I don't want to be colonised by green people. The British have done their worst already

HapyOne:
I think it doesn't make sense for man to be alone in the whole universe, it is too big for that.
I believe scientist might and probably will never find other type of life in another planet if they keep using Man as a judge for life.
I believe other forms of life could exist in other planets, either before, currently or in the near future but they might not take the form of man or we can't notice them. Another thing is that our technology is based on Man's perspectives of reality for example for those that believe in ghost, spirits and those kind of things , our current technology can't detect them nor find them. So imagine the if those kind of beings are the ones in other planets, we might not be able to detect them.

I think the universe is too big just for one set of life.
I know we are not alone.

Jimmyo3:
Are you refering to NASA's Blue Beam Project? Which plans to fake the second coming of Christ?

erusen:
that is myopic kind of thinking, am a deist don't think I care about ur alleged Christ.all these dogmas seft

erusen:
being a religious person kind of block ur free flow of imagination concerning things like this,but being a Muslim is worse though they still the earth is flat

erusen:
yea men thanks,but sometimes it just feels fustrating

erusen:
what kind of science is this

sukkot:
lets take the topic of geomancy and sacred geometry for example, do you know that the ascended masters aka spiritual beings from other galaxies send messages to us on earth by burning sacred geometry messages into thousands of acres of crop fields ? these messages are so huge that you can fit a million people in some of these sacred geometry messages beamed down to earth from the ascended masters in these galaxies. here is an example of such messages. ?

johnydon22:
You are even going too far ... what we humans define as basic necessities for life to thrive are not even what many life on planet EARTH yes here on EARTH use.

There are life forms on earth that thrive in places we regard extreme and impossible to harbour life maybe due to temperature, gases etc but we see life forms not only thriving but fully normal to the environment and probably will parish if subjected to our own environment.

So certainly if these life forms are asked to determine necessities for life to thrive it must be a reflection of what they are used to which for us is a NO NO NO..

Life is incredibly diverse that we cannot really pin point it.

Jimmyo3:
you must be a member of one esoteric organisation and which is it?

johnydon22:
My bro we are a fortunate lot to be in a generation where we have unlimited knowledge at the tip of our fingers (The internet) .. many don't realize this and they use the internet for things that are basically useless and cannot develop them ..

I am a 21st century being bro, so i deal with e-books mostly not hard copies (mostly because i sometimes can't afford hard copies).. So i have tons of E-books i can send to you and another way is youtube, it is much fun... The phone makes it easy that you carry a whole lot of books without the weight for free..

micodon:


bros, I didn't ask for definitions.... DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPTS? In a nutshell, every object in the universe is moving at 4 velocities (3 in each spatial dimensions and 1 in the time dimension). THE SUM OF THESE VELOCITIES ALWAYS EQUALS THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Therefore, when you go faster in the spatial dimensions, your velocity in the time dimension reduces relative to your velocity in the spatial dimensions. Let's represent this in a simple equation. X + Y + Z + T = c. Where X, Y, Z are the velocities in your Cartesian coordinates, T is your velocity in the time dimension, and c is the speed of light.

Now what happens when you reach a velocity that equals c in your spatial dimensions? We make T the subject of the formula, like so.... T = C - (X + Y +Z). Because x+y+z = c, T = 0. So at the speed of light, time stops for the object. That is why light photons are ageless... They travel at c, so T for them = 0.

Now what happens when You go past the speed of light in your spatial dimensions? That means (X + Y + Z) becomes greater than C. Therefore time becomes negative. What does it mean for time to flow in the negative direction? I leave you to answer that.


This is all fine Mathematically. But according to Einstein, the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe.. Nothing can go beyond it. That's where going back in time fails in practical

micodon:


bros, I didn't ask for definitions.... DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPTS? In a nutshell, every object in the universe is moving at 4 velocities (3 in each spatial dimensions and 1 in the time dimension). THE SUM OF THESE VELOCITIES ALWAYS EQUALS THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Therefore, when you go faster in the spatial dimensions, your velocity in the time dimension reduces relative to your velocity in the spatial dimensions. Let's represent this in a simple equation. X + Y + Z + T = c. Where X, Y, Z are the velocities in your Cartesian coordinates, T is your velocity in the time dimension, and c is the speed of light.

Now what happens when you reach a velocity that equals c in your spatial dimensions? We make T the subject of the formula, like so.... T = C - (X + Y +Z). Because x+y+z = c, T = 0. So at the speed of light, time stops for the object. That is why light photons are ageless... They travel at c, so T for them = 0.

Now what happens when You go past the speed of light in your spatial dimensions? That means (X + Y + Z) becomes greater than C. Therefore time becomes negative. What does it mean for time to flow in the negative direction? I leave you to answer that.


This is all fine Mathematically. But according to Einstein, the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe.. Nothing can go beyond it. That's where going back in time fails in practical

vivaciousvivi:

I completely understand you, yet I try to always keep an open man. After the theory of circumnavigation of the earth was proven, the so called Earth is flat theory fell....well flat (pun intended).
To each his own, I always say.

johnydon22:
I don't it is ever possible to travel back in time, not in this macro universe.. Time may slow down, run at different pace at space/time but never backwards.. If time travel was ever possible to mankind where are the visitors from the future?

Jimmyo3:
Lolz this is science beyond material practiced and believed by members of esoteric organisations like Amorc,grail message,Eckankar etc.

wirinet:
I was a strong believer of the universe teeming with life, but with more understanding of life, i have began to scale down my expectations. There is a possibility that we are alone in the universe.

The vastness of the universe makes the probability of life existing only on earth highly unlikely; but then we have to take the uniqueness of LIFE into consideration. First to understand how unique life is in the universe, you would need to understand the very definition of life. Life is simply a set of self duplicating molecules, either singularly or in combinations to form larger units. Now the conditions for a set of molecules to achieve self duplication is highly specific and rare.
Let me list some of these conditions;
- There must be presence of liquid water. Gaseous and solid water cannot support the processes of life. This restrict the surface temperature of a planet that can support life to between 0 to between100 degrees centegrade.
- There must be abundant carbon as life can only be carbon based. Silicon cannot support life as it combination with other elements and compounds is limited. if silicon can support life, life on earth will be silicon based as silicon make up 28% of elements on earth.
- The interior of a planet that support life must have a molten magnetic core to create a magnetic shield to protect the planet. without the magnetic shield, solar and cosmic radiation would not even allow life to form.
Another important factor for life is the type of sum. The sun holding the planet must be the right size, ie a yellow dwarf. If the sun is too big, it would give out too powerful radiations and burn out too fast to allow life on any of its planets. If it is too small it would not provide enough energy to sustain life on its planets. it is only a yellow dwarf that can remain stable for billions of years to allow life to evolve.

- Eccentricity. Planets that can sustain life must have less eccentric orbits around it sun, highly eccentric orbits would cause to wide a temperature variation to allow life to evolve.

There are other specific conditions necessary for life.

Earth is uniquely poised to meet all these conditions and i suspect only few stars and planets that can meet the conditions necessary for life.

Dollyak:

There is a huge possibility for backward time travelling, at least from a mathematical point fo view-based on Einstein's theory of general relativity, which describes gravity as the warping of spacetime by energy and matter. An extremely powerful gravitational field, such as that produced by a spinning black hole, could in principle profoundly warp the fabric of existence so that spacetime bends back on itself. This would create a closed timelike curve, a loop that could be traversed to travel back in time.

johnydon22:
[b]You see the question of "Are we alone?" has been one that has bothered mankind from the advent of it's intelligence..

From the On set of civilization and Science known as Natural Philosophy to the ancients man has always gazed and wondered in awe of the cosmos.

-First it was the question of "Are we alone in this world?" then man realized that he was not, he met many other life forms neighbouring him in this planet and also met many other just like him but with distinctions.

Man met other civilization and societies just like his.

-Then came the Question "Is our Planet alone?" this one is as old as study of the sky itself (astrology in ancient terms) ..

Man wondered if this "Earth" that harboured him, if there were other ones just like it or is it the only one?

Yet again this question was answered in time and it dawned on mankind that "His planet" is not alone. there are many like it and together they are under one system.

-Then arose the question "Is this our system (solar system) alone?" Not until the 20th century did our technology advance enough to detect other planets from neighbouring stars.

It dawned on mankind that there are in fact "Other Solar systems like his and they number in their countless numbers"..

Mankind learnt that most of the stars it gaze at at night all have planets orbiting them, they are systems of their own and there is a wild and vast collection of these celestial bodies.

Galaxy...

-Right from the medieval ages man has always wondered if his own galaxy was the only in the cosmos

Yet just like every other question yielded disappointing answers showing mankind it is nothing too special, the reality of other galaxies delivered another blow.

Mankind realized his galaxy was not the only one but just 1 out of countless others like it.

That was a staggering revelation brought to light by the Young Edwin Hubble.

Now since man have seen he is not alone in the planet, his planet is not alone in the system and his system is not the only one around and his galaxy is just a tiny bit of a monstrous whole. .. Curiosity grew because we realized that we are no more special than we make ourselves to be in our ego.

Since the advancement of technology the picture became clearer and man saw more galaxies, planets, systems than he ever could have imagined.

It then gave rise to the ultimate questions..

-Are we alone in terms of life ?

-Is our universe the only one there is or yet another tiny part of a numerous lot.

ARE WE ALONE IN TERMS OF LIFE

It seems the answer is "Hell No we are not" for most people you will throw this question to, because anyone who considers the vastness of the universe would think it is ridiculous for man to think he is alone.

But let it be known that when MAN refers to "life" it uses his own perception of it which stems from his own knowledge of it around him, so LIFE in general as regards it's probable distinct manifestations in the universe may be enormously more than what we think.

Of course there are only two possibilities ..

1) either we are
2)or we are not.

Number one is very unlikely and almost improbable, the second in as much as it is very likely is far fetched considering that an enormous distance stands between us and exploration of the cosmos.

But it is almost an absurd thought to imagine we can be alone in the cosmos where there are countless stars around and trillions of them passing our so called "Goldilock" test.

all the stars we see at night are all a tiny circle in our galaxy now consider the vastness of such galaxy.

Not only if we are the only life but are they also intelligent?

If we consider that out of all the millions of species in the planet only 1 evolved to a state of technological advancement shows that the possibility of a technologically able alien civilization is slimmer than just "Alien life"

But yet again there will always be need for us to re-evaluate our idea of what LIFE is because since life arises in relation to it's environment we cannot hope to expect "Life" anything close to what we have on earth.

there have been environments on earth where we assume it is impossible for life to exist in but yet surprisingly we find life thriving there..

we are carbon based life forms and we are mainly made up of Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen ... And these elements are the most common elements in the whole universe alongside Helium.

so we are nothing special but are products of the most common things found in the universe now consider the possibilities.

So we should widen our expectations ..

We are looking, both in our back yard neighbourhood Mars and Europa or other candidates in our solar system and with hopeful breakthroughs in the future space transportations we may yet explore the cosmos.

and again keep up the hope even though it is a very slim chance of establishing contact with technologically prone aliens since we have been sending radio signals through out all directions of space..

it is almost an improbable chance but we may yet be surprised.

IS OUR UNIVERSE THE ONLY ONE OR YET AGAIN ANOTHER TINY BIT OF A NUMEROUS LOT

I will let this pass since it is not the subject of this thread, maybe it will be our subject of discussion next time.

[/b]

Dollyak:
We might likely never know especially when we have been unable to fully explore our own galaxy-milky way.

JhyMedex:
See intelligent thread here...
I don't dey look 4 dem tosyne.2much, esthar.fabian, obiarasubtle n d likes I know see....
Bt if 2 say na 10 tins.. N cossy boobs na....
U knw d rest...