Could this all be reality once?

[CJ-the-ancient-scientist]

I mean seriously, we've got
- aliens
- crystals
- Villages
- Inhabitants
- leaders

COULD THIS BE REALITY?

[Øsiris øf the Øri]

um...what could all be reality? Stargate? Doubtful since any alien life we discovery will be long dead before we can meet it Unless they are lightyears ahead of us.

[Ripple in Space]

NO! Crystal based tech could be real, but it's statistically impossible for other sentient life to bear such a close resemblance to humans. Even Unas are way too similar.

[HAL]

Crytal based tech is real there currently experimenting with such tech

[Jackie]

Sure, ever since the Asgard crashed at Roswell in 1947. lol

[An-Alteran]

Um, Alien life (even microbes) from a Creation or Evolutionary view is so astronomically unlikely that it is not worth seriously considering outside of fiction.

[PG15]

And the universe is so astronomically big, that it balances out.

No humanoids is fine by me, but I don't see how alien life happening in the big-a** universe is out of the question. If it happened once, it can happen again.

[An-Alteran]

And the universe is so astronomically big, that it balances out.

No humanoids is fine by me, but I don't see how alien life happening in the big-a** universe is out of the question. If it happened once, it can happen again.

Well, most of it is empty space.
So that removes a great deal of the big.
A large section of the universe is also ruled out because it is so inindated with radiation from the Big bang, that life couldn't possibly survive.
Roaches would die.
That is the central area of the universe.

Furthermore the vast majority of stars are too random and unpredictable to support life, because they can't sustain the same conditions for long enough.

Few stars have the constitution to create planets.
Fewer still have planets in the range needed for life.
Even fewer would have planets perfectly in place so as to allow more complex life to exist.

Most of this galaxy is too dangerous, and too intermotent and too filled with radiation and threats to allow long term development of life.

Ect, Ect Ect Ect.

[PG15]

Well...I don't want to derail this thread...but...ah, what the heck.

Well, most of it is empty space.
So that removes a great deal of the big.
A large section of the universe is also ruled out because it is so inindated with radiation from the Big bang, that life couldn't possibly survive.
Roaches would die.
That is the central area of the universe.

But there is no center to the universe. In fact, the microwave background radiation is uniform across the universe. The only reason we see nothing but it really really far away is because light from stars beyond that haven't reached us yet.

Furthermore the vast majority of stars are too random and unpredictable to support life, because they can't sustain the same conditions for long enough.

But most stars are in their main sequence where they don't change that much. The only times a star gets unstable is during the beginning and ending of its life, which doesn't take up that much time.

Few stars have the constitution to create planets.
Fewer still have planets in the range needed for life.
Even fewer would have planets perfectly in place so as to allow more complex life to exist.

Ok, first, all you need is a sufficient collection of rock and dust to fuse together into planetoids for planets to form. I mean, that's what they are, right? And yes, you're right about the range. However, life exists on Earth in a wide range of environments and temperatures, so I don't think it has to be just right. We're not talking about within few kelvins of Earth here.

And we were talking about microbes, not complex life.

[Phantom Limb]

actually were discovering solar systems all the time, we just havent developed the technology to detect rocky inner planets yet its all to do with gravitational wobbles at the moment so we keep finding alot of gas giant solar systems, infact our type of star, g-type (correct me if im wrong) is by far the most common in the galaxy so there for the likely hood of solar systems is higher and consider also that Earth supports life, Mars supported life at one stage and Europa a moon of jupiter could also have life, if that turns out to be the case thats three planetary bodies in one solar system that have life potential, so i think life may be quite abundant in the universe.

however, sentient life, thats another thing altogether, it'll probably be rarer but were sentient so there must be others, nature doesnt do one off's.

as for stargates and the like i dont think so, although artificial wormholes might be the choice of travel since light speed is impossible to attain unless your energy and as people have already pointed out the universe is big, haha
hyperspace and subspace is just a load of bullplop as far as i know and matter/energy transportation would require a technology that is simply unfathomable, taking apart every atom of your being and then re-arranging them in exactly the same order in a different space altogether

although to be honest it would be just so damn cool if it all really existed but i'll bet as with most things the truth will turn out to be stranger than fiction.

but thats not why we watch stargate, we watch it for the haha

[An-Alteran]

Well...I don't want to derail this thread...but...ah, what the heck.

Exactly how I feal.

But there is no center to the universe. In fact, the microwave background radiation is uniform across the universe. The only reason we see nothing but it really really far away is because light from stars beyond that haven't reached us yet.

The universe is an expanding sphere, if the big bang is accurate.
So indeed there is a center.
I believe you are partially right about radiation.
But certain areas are certainly far more irradiated than others I believe.

But most stars are in their main sequence where they don't change that much. The only times a star gets unstable is during the beginning and ending of its life, which doesn't take up that much time.

About 50% are in their main sequence.
That doesn't make them entirely stable.
They still vary.
And few main sequence stars have the right materials present for the formation of heavy elements, and few of those are nice life giving yellow dwarfs like our own.

Ok, first, all you need is a sufficient collection of rock and dust to fuse together into planetoids for planets to form. I mean, that's what they are, right?

Well it isn't that simple.
But even assuming it was that easy, then you need the right set of Carbon compounds, and the right chemicals to stimulate the envioronment. And the right distance, and concentration of gravity, and other factors, ect. ect. ect.

And yes, you're right about the range. However, life exists on Earth in a wide range of environments and temperatures, so I don't think it has to be just right. We're not talking about within few kelvins of Earth here.

But only exists after formation.
Life can't form in those environments.

And we were talking about microbes, not complex life.

I was mainly reffering to complex life.
Microbes even wouldn't FORM in most conditions. Survive, maybe.
But if evolution is accurate, they couldn't form in vortually anywhere but the absolute perfect environment, and even then it is infinitely unlikely.

If Creation is true, then all bets are off.

[PG15]

The universe is an expanding sphere, if the big bang is accurate.
So indeed there is a center.

No, actually that's a misconception brought upon by the "balloon = big bang" analogy people use all the time. For it to work, you'll have to imagine a 4-spatial-dimensional balloon, and we're living on the 3-dimensional skin. Technically, the space itself is stretching part in all directions, at all points (or was it just between galaxies? I think that's it). either way, every bit of space is expanding. There is no center.

That's a big thing in cosmology; people always thought Earth was the center of the universe, then it was moved to the sun, then it was moved to the galaxy, until finally people realized that there's no such thing.

I believe you are partially right about radiation.
But certain areas are certainly far more irradiated than others I believe.

True; but we're talking about unique situations, like beside massive main sequence stars, active galaxies, gamma ray bursters or other rare things. The wide universe is certainly not like that. If anything, they're much much more "boring" than our own solar system, looking at it from an objective perspective.

About 50% are in their main sequence.
That doesn't make them entirely stable.
They still vary.
And few main sequence stars have the right materials present for the formation of heavy elements, and few of those are nice life giving yellow dwarfs like our own.

I'll trust you on the 50% figure, since I've heard you cite it before. But still, that's a huuuuuge amount of stars. And yes, even at main sequence the stars vary, but it's very slightly. The sun has been getting smaller and hotter for the past 5 billion years and will continue to do so as the hydrogen fuel runs out.

But it's not that much. Again, life doesn't just exist in the here and now, they exist in places and environment that we thought had to be sterile, like those hot springs on the bottom of oceans, or buried miles below the ground in bedrock. Life is like a virus, really.

Well it isn't that simple.
But even assuming it was that easy, then you need the right set of Carbon compounds, and the right chemicals to stimulate the envioronment. And the right distance, and concentration of gravity, and other factors, ect. ect. ect.

Again true, but for what? We'll need the right ingredients if we want to create an Earth, but we don't have to. Life can exist in many forms.

And carbon is not that rare if you compare to other, heavier elements. After all, any star the size of the sun or larger can create it within their cores.

But only exists after formation.
Life can't form in those environments.

Why not? They would've had to form somewhere, and wherever it is, it would have to be different from those environments (unless they formed there in the first place).

Ergo, if they didn't form there, they would've had to evolve to be able to live there, and thus I don't see how something else can't evolve to live there.

I was mainly reffering to complex life.
Microbes even wouldn't FORM in most conditions. Survive, maybe.
But if evolution is accurate, they couldn't form in vortually anywhere but the absolute perfect environment, and even then it is infinitely unlikely.

Ok, I guess I stretched it a little; still I don't think the conditions has to be that specfic. As long as some of the bare, essential elements are there (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, which are all created in sun-like stars or above, except hydrogen), as well as the right amount of energy, I think life can form, slowly but surely.

If Creation is true, then all bets are off.

We are NOT going to get into this.

[Bragi]

I love fantasy. . . . and fantasizing. . . . . but no. It's not reality. Alas.

[CJ-the-ancient-scientist]

I think that the whole story of Stargate and SGA could be based on partly fiction, partly reality.

And it would be damn cool if we had the NASA at our doorstep asking us to help with the Atlantis Expedition.

[Dutch_Razor]

Um, Alien life (even microbes) from a Creation or Evolutionary view is so astronomically unlikely that it is not worth seriously considering outside of fiction.

According to "Kijk", a renowned Dutch science magazine, NASA calculated the chance of aliens wanting to invade us be over 0,51..