We all know there are billions of stars in our galaxy, but lets face it, billion is not a word I understand. I can intellectualize the concept, but my mind can't provide me with any picture of what a number on that scale looks or feels like. Here is a recently made video I happened on depicting only the 1776 then-known planets of two months ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw_KfDEypTY
Most of those are the ones that are so close to us we can't miss them with our new tools, such as the Kepler Space Telescope.
The images I get of vast oceanic worlds full of arthropod life, endless forests known only to snails, and of gentle and warlike cultures is phenomenal.
If you concentrate, you can see Vulcan and Kronos go by.
------------------
To compliment and expand on that, with a very recent article:
http://www.universetoday.com/112265/there-might-be-100-million-planets-in-the-galaxy-with-complex-life/ (http://www.universetoday.com/112265/there-might-be-100-million-planets-in-the-galaxy-with-complex-life/)
QuoteThe figure came from studying a list of more than 1,000 exoplanets for metrics such as their density, temperature, chemistry, age and distance from the parent star. From this, Irwin's team formulated a "biological complexity index" that ranges between 0 and 1.0. The index is rated on "the number and degree of characteristics assumed to be important for supporting multiple forms of multicellular life," the research team stated.
Assuming that Europa (a moon of Jupiter believed to have an ocean below its ice) is a good candiate for life, the team estimated that 1% to 2% of exoplanets would have a BCI that is even higher than that. So to translate that into some estimates: 10 billion stars in the Milky Way, averaging one planet a star, which brings us to 100 million planets minimum.
The figure came from studying a list of more than 1,000 exoplanets for metrics such as their density, temperature, chemistry, age and distance from the parent star. From this, Irwin's team formulated a "biological complexity index" that ranges between 0 and 1.0. The index is rated on "the number and degree of characteristics assumed to be important for supporting multiple forms of multicellular life," the research team stated.
Assuming that Europa (a moon of Jupiter believed to have an ocean below its ice) is a good candiate for life, the team estimated that 1% to 2% of exoplanets would have a BCI that is even higher than that. So to translate that into some estimates: 10 billion stars in the Milky Way, averaging one planet a star, which brings us to 100 million planets minimum.
100 million planets with things at least as complicated as jellyfish or tardigrades probably inhabiting them. There are wonders just out of our current reach, I am sure of it. Probably lucky for them we can't reach them yet.
Very interesting how you mentioned Europa. It's the one place I've tried to get to in the RTZ after a tip from some random NP guy. The RTZ seems closed hence the simple trip isn't happening just yet.
Looking for microbiological life being the purpose of the trip.
Perhaps we can't physically reach these 100,000,000 planets but open to the RTZ and away we go. Boldly going where no man has gone before.
:-D
Very true, but where I am now, I can't be sure of bringing back trustworthy data of something I can't physically verify. I would never know if I was having an experience of a faraway physical place, or something I had envisioned. It doesn't help that I clearly have an active imagination about those things :roll:
With some help, perhaps one of those probes sent out may reveal something.
It's something that's proved itself to me with my trip to Saturns rings in '69.
What I saw was duplicated by the probes photos, that was one verification and a half. I can remember writing a story at school about the rings, lots of 'em of all sizes.
Top marks awarded for 'imagination'. :lol:
This all actually makes me question whether that stuff it "really" out there or is it a case that the more we "look", the more that appears! :|
So a similar argument to the old Christian notion of the universe being built solely for the earth? As in the rest is just fluff, and they can add it later as we look?
I think Tom said something like that at some point... that the only parts of the world that are really there are the parts conscious beings are looking at- the rest doesn't need to exist.
Maybe, but that only works if humans are the coolest thing in this physical universe, and it is our playground. I feel like there are others out there someplace...
There is lots out there or it's percieved that way. I've done a fair bit of distant observing to the point outside of everything made of matter. A miniscule dot of light against a pitch black background. It was unnerving, mostly due to my age being so young. The verification on the rings took decades to occur. A perfect match. I now wonder what else I saw that may also be a precise match to the physical reality. Many of the coloured luminous gas clouds change beyond recognition if you get too close. At the time I thought it was strange, making them appear dreamlike. Using my education it's apparent that what you see at a distant point isn't what you see close up as your angle of perception has changed. These are massive 3D multicolor marvels and some have other colours which cant be seen from the outside. My guess is dust clouds are flourescing from the high energy fields present. Similar to the Auroras with far more colour.
To add to this...
Google posted this link the other day: http://workshop.chromeexperiments.com/stars/
It's REALLY neat.
Yeah... and that is still only 100,000 stars. Creation is immense many orders of magnitude beyond our ability to conceive.
To go with Tom C.'s analogy, we are even lower than the bacteria in our digestive systems when it comes to seeing the bigger system. We are worse off than the bacteria that has no ability to understand the tractors that plow and sow our crops or the fuel that runs the machinery that sustain our food chain so that they can breakdown some corn that magically appears.
I wonder if they worship our molars? :lol: