Reply to: The chance of life coming from Mars is less than a million to 1

[eliquant]

How would we pick up the transmission? What technology would we need?

Also, the assumption that other intelligent life would use e-m waves to communicate is very odd - just because we do doesn't mean they haven't found other means.

Good point I guess we just don't know how to build a faster than light signal 'receiver'.

Although I am worried about why other life forms more intelligent than ourselves have not revealed themselves yet. Are we just not worth it ? or do they fear something about revealing themselves and their location to others unknown (more worry).

[lje]

very suprised that no other life has sent a consistent signal accross the universe that is repeating and intelligable - that is the WORRYING part of all this, the signal would have to be faster than light which means that no life has been able to invent such a transmission device (probably) which is again .. worrying i.e. is there a limit beyond which technology cannot go or is it that we are at or near the tech level of all intelligent life in the universe (a depressing thought).

How would we pick up the transmission? What technology would we need?

Also, the assumption that other intelligent life would use e-m waves to communicate is very odd - just because we do doesn't mean they haven't found other means.

[Sysman]

Bulgarian scientist says he talks to aliens

[eliquant]

In order for life to have a chance we need to have water, there is ice on Mars but no liquid water has been found. If there was life on Mars its frozen in fossil form and it will be hard to find i.e. its like asking someone in this site to find some frozen dog poo in the tundra.


Pretty sure we are not alone, very suprised that no other life has sent a consistent signal accross the universe that is repeating and intelligable - that is the WORRYING part of all this, the signal would have to be faster than light which means that no life has been able to invent such a transmission device (probably) which is again .. worrying i.e. is there a limit beyond which technology cannot go or is it that we are at or near the tech level of all intelligent life in the universe (a depressing thought).

[RichardCranium]

Correct. I lost a power of 10 somewhere, ...

You've lost a power of 10 there too

Well done!

But the burning question is

1. Does the beach have any decent bars?
2. Is it popular with the laydeez?

Someone on here once posted the link to this webcam. I regularly refer to it: "The Royal Palms, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands. I hate every person you can see in this image." It has something to do with someone who was once on CUK, I believe.

[DimPrawn]

And when were you last invited to a party ... that didn't include Pass the Parcel and Musical Chairs?

People seem to lose my invite in the post.

[RichardCranium]

You're the bloke that comes over and talks to me at parties and I claim my 500 yawns.

And when were you last invited to a party ... that didn't include Pass the Parcel and Musical Chairs?

[Sysman]

If we take a medium grain of sand as 0.5mm then the sand cube would be 10.77km per side. This allows for a beach to be 1km wide, 100m deep and 12,500 km long!

But the burning question is

1. Does the beach have any decent bars?
2. Is it popular with the laydeez?

[DimPrawn]

21km sided cube? That's a funny number from those source numbers.

A line of 10^8 sand grains, each at 0.1mm (which is a very fine sand) is 10km long. So the cube would be 10km per side.

I think you must have been out by a factor of 10 somewhere when you did your cube root.

The quote is usually given as "grains of sand on a beach", not "grains of sand on Earth".

If the beach is a lovely 1km wide and the sand 100m deep it would have to be a huge 1000km long to contain 10^24 tightly packed particles of 0.1mm cubic size.


A conservative estimate for the number of stars is 10^22. This is 21,5000,000 stars per side when packed in a cube. (I see where your '21km' comes from now - different sources!.)

If we take a medium grain of sand as 0.5mm then the sand cube would be 10.77km per side. This allows for a beach to be 1km wide, 100m deep and 12,500 km long!

You're the bloke that comes over and talks to me at parties and I claim my 500 yawns.

[TimberWolf]

21km sided cube? That's a funny number from those source numbers.

A line of 10^8 sand grains, each at 0.1mm (which is a very fine sand) is 10km long. So the cube would be 10km per side.

I think you must have been out by a factor of 10 somewhere when you did your cube root.

The quote is usually given as "grains of sand on a beach", not "grains of sand on Earth".

If the beach is a lovely 1km wide and the sand 100m deep it would have to be a huge 1000km long to contain 10^24 tightly packed particles of 0.1mm cubic size.


A conservative estimate for the number of stars is 10^22. This is 21,5000,000 stars per side when packed in a cube. (I see where your '21km' comes from now - different sources!.)

If we take a medium grain of sand as 0.5mm then the sand cube would be 10.77km per side. This allows for a beach to be 1km wide, 100m deep and 12,500 km long!

Correct. I lost a power of 10 somewhere, I could either blame a sticky '0' key on my not oft used calculator, or more embarrassingly ascribe it to my pressing the EXP key instead of power. But as you say, it should be 10km cubed with my numbers. I prefer the 10^24 figure, as an upper bound is IMO more likely to be the more accurate. The important thing though, IMO, is that saying 'so many beaches of sand etc' is pretty meaningless and if anything makes it harder to conceptualise than the original number, but once you put that huge number in terms of a cube of sand, rather than beaches of unknown dimensions and numbers etc, it can be visualised. Just a 10km cube of sand. And a little more if the sand particles are larger.

If the beach is a lovely 1km wide and the sand 100m deep it would have to be a huge 1000km long to contain 10^24 tightly packed particles of 0.1mm cubic size.

You've lost a power of 10 there too

[RichardCranium]

The Interweb outputs a figure of 10^24 stars in the universe, or a cube of them with dimensions 10^8 stars per side. So if a grain of sand were 0.1 mm (smallish, but sand comes in all sorts of sizes and this is an easy size), and each grain represents a star, a box of sand representing all the stars in the universe would make a 21km sand cube. Lots of sand, but comprehensible.

21km sided cube? That's a funny number from those source numbers.

A line of 10^8 sand grains, each at 0.1mm (which is a very fine sand) is 10km long. So the cube would be 10km per side.

I think you must have been out by a factor of 10 somewhere when you did your cube root.

The quote is usually given as "grains of sand on a beach", not "grains of sand on Earth".

If the beach is a lovely 1km wide and the sand 100m deep it would have to be a huge 1000km long to contain 10^24 tightly packed particles of 0.1mm cubic size.


A conservative estimate for the number of stars is 10^22. This is 21,5000,000 stars per side when packed in a cube. (I see where your '21km' comes from now - different sources!.)

If we take a medium grain of sand as 0.5mm then the sand cube would be 10.77km per side. This allows for a beach to be 1km wide, 100m deep and 12,500 km long!

[EternalOptimist]

They might have had little beardy parts .

oh, you should have said. voted.

[TimberWolf]

Only 11 votes? Are moustaches and financial armageddon more important issues to discuss and vote on than whether life exists (or existed on) another planet?

They might have had little beardy parts and an easily manipulated medium of exchange for all we know.

[gingerjedi]

There are more stars in the universe than there are grains on sand on Planet Earth (actually, that has been upgraded to there being 1000 stars per grain of sand).

And... there are more possible moves in a chess game then atoms in the universe. I have no idea if this is true but it sounds impressive.

Does that still stand given the 1000 fold upgrade?

[Board Game Geek]

Do you want a debate about the Fermi Paradox or are you trolling again?

He's trolling, because the alternative is that he is incredibly subnormal, and I'm alway prepared to give people the benefit of doubt.