Spring RTS Engine

As if self awereness was all that matters. It's the same shit that astro biologist assume. "Life can only exist with carbon and hydrogen.", although we already found life based on other concepts here on earth. And yes self awereness is the same shit, because i think that there are different forms of intelligence.

Sometimes even scientists act religious. :/

adin_panther wrote:"Life can only exist with carbon and hydrogen.", although we already found life based on other concepts here on earth.

ORLY?

Are you getting confused by food chains not starting with sun or what?

Its hard to find anything that exists without hydrogen simply because of its sheer abundance

adin_panther wrote:Sometimes even scientists act religious. :/

I think a scientist can be religious and a religious person can be scientific. There are people who have PhDs. in a scientific field that believe in God and there are religious people who are scientific such and Mendel, the "father of genetics", was a priest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendel

It seem a little silly to me to try to say that people who are scientists can't be religious or that religious people can't be scientific when they're all people.

Panda wrote:

adin_panther wrote:Sometimes even scientists act religious. :/

I think a scientist can be religious and a religious person can be scientific. There are people who have PhDs. in a scientific field that believe in God and there are religious people who are scientific such and Mendel, the "father of genetics", was a priest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendel

It seem a little silly to me to try to say that people who are scientists can't be religious or that religious people can't be scientific when they're all people.

I think what he was trying to say is that some scientists hold near-religious beliefs in the absolute truth of some of our current scientific theories, treating these theories as true as a matter of faith rather than following the proper scientific method of accepting current theories as our best explanation of phenomena but subject to change as our understanding of the universe continues to expand.

History tells us that scientific inquiry will continue to develop imperfect models of the universe, with each succeeding model explaining the universe better than its predecessor. Newton's laws of gravitation work well, but were found to be flawed by Einstein, whose theory of general relativity was found to be a better explanation for the same phenomenon through observational and experimental trials. Some recent observations suggest that general relativity is flawed and that a new, more accurate theory will be developed. However, some physicists have reacted to these observations by saying that general relativity is the absolute truth - it is the end-all, be-all of gravitational laws - and that the observations must be wrong because they do not fit into our current understanding of the universe. This is the "religious" mindset that panther was trying to communicate, I think.

adin_panther wrote:It's the same shit that astro biologist assume. "Life can only exist with carbon and hydrogen.", although we already found life based on other concepts here on earth.

if we actually found life based on other concepts here on earth as you say any scientist who said otherwise would be ridiculed

science is all about evidence

However, some physicists have reacted to these observations by saying that general relativity is the absolute truth

i seriously cannot picture this attitude

sceptical? probably. refusing to believe even when confronted with evidence or whatever? dumb

[quote="Felix the Cat] I think what he was trying to say is that some scientists hold near-religious beliefs in the absolute truth of some of our current scientific theories, treating these theories as true as a matter of faith rather than following the proper scientific method of accepting current theories as our best explanation of phenomena but subject to change as our understanding of the universe continues to expand.[/quote]

Ok.

@IvoryKing: Single celled organism demon... sounds like an excellent basis for a Spring mod to me!

zwzsg wrote:

adin_panther wrote:"Life can only exist with carbon and hydrogen.", although we already found life based on other concepts here on earth.

ORLY?

Are you getting confused by food chains not starting with sun or what?

Wtf has the sun got to do with what i said ?

tombom wrote: if we actually found life based on other concepts here on earth as you say any scientist who said otherwise would be ridiculed

science is all about evidence

Man, just use google. If you don't want to use google, buy a book. Silicium is what you're looking for. And the problem is that in the moment we have many theories that fight for survival, even the good old big bang is still around, as well like 10 other well thought out theories. No one is being rediculed.

What does the sun have to do with hydrogen?

Oh good heavens, if that is truely what he meant it was a bit very far off

No, what I referred to was those weird organisms living of sulphur spring in the abyss, instead of starting the food chain with photosynthesis like everybody else. I thought that maybe adin had confused living off unusual elements with being made of unusual elements.

But from his later post it seems adin instead is referring to some silicium based lifeforms. I've read a few SciFi story with silicium based E.T., and I know half a century ago scientist wondered if there couldn't be crystals that could be consired life. But, no, adin_panther, in this reality, there are no silicium based lifeforms. They are only fictional. (and yes, using the googles tells the same).

Ok, i actually mistranslated that, but it comes down to the same. It is freely admitted that it would very well be possible. And what i was referring to orignally had nothing to do with the sun, because the search for life is a step ahead ... we are not searching for suns anymore, we are searching for planets that contain hydrogen and carbon, as if that was going to help anything. While we can prove the basis of life on our own planet, does same apply for the rest of the universe ?

zwzsg wrote:But, no, adin_panther, in this reality, there are no silicium based lifeforms. They are only fictional. (and yes, using the googles tells the same).

wut

It would be a bit more accurate to say that there are no silicon-based lifeforms on Earth... who knows what biochemistry would be exhibited by life that developed in completely different environments?

If something's existence in science fiction means "It is freely admitted that it would very well be possible", then why is there no Niven ring in our solar system

We search for planets with carbon and hydrogen because we really have no concept of the mechanics of 'life' other than terrestrial biochemistry. See this article.

Peet wrote:If something's existence in science fiction means "It is freely admitted that it would very well be possible", then why is there no Niven ring in our solar system

We search for planets with carbon and hydrogen because we really have no concept of the mechanics of 'life' other than terrestrial biochemistry. See this article.

Oh, definitely true, and the characteristics of our universe make it likely that most life will be carbon-based, using water as a solvent.

But that doesn't mean that all life is required to be carbon-based.

Naturally, research into non-carbon biochemistry doesn't happen, both because it's useless at this point and there is no context - no starting point. Which is fine. I'm sure plenty of research will be done if and when it is necessary.

On the topic of life: will we find life elsewhere in the Solar System besides Earth? How about extinct life?

Personally I think we'll find living things on at least two other Solar System bodies.

Well when life (we'll define 'life' as a self-replicating and mutating ordered system for the purpose of this topic) is based on mechanisms other than terrestrial ones, we run into one little problem - recognizing that it is life. Life, by this definition, could be a collection of big rocks interacting via 'gravity chemistry' similar to how molecules interact in chemistry as we know it. It could be charged dust particles interacting via electromagnetism near a pulsar star. It could be atoms interacting via nuclear chemistry on the surface of a neutron star. How would we recognize any of these things as being alive?

adin_panther wrote:

tombom wrote: if we actually found life based on other concepts here on earth as you say any scientist who said otherwise would be ridiculed

science is all about evidence

Man, just use google. If you don't want to use google, buy a book. Silicium is what you're looking for. And the problem is that in the moment we have many theories that fight for survival, even the good old big bang is still around, as well like 10 other well thought out theories. No one is being rediculed.

I know that silicone can theoretically be used as a base for life. Saying "just use google"/"buy a book" is a totally moronic way of conducting an argument. I barely know what you're talking about.

adin_panther wrote:It's the same shit that astro biologist assume. "Life can only exist with carbon and hydrogen.", although we already found life based on other concepts here on earth.

adin_panther doesn't say it could theorically exist, he said it was already found, here on earth.

zwzsg wrote:

adin_panther wrote:It's the same shit that astro biologist assume. "Life can only exist with carbon and hydrogen.", although we already found life based on other concepts here on earth.

adin_panther doesn't say it could theorically exist, he said it was already found, here on earth.

And i also corrected myself, stating indeed that i had mistranslated, something that happens, sorry for the confusion. It was besides the point anyway and only an example that different concepts should be considered, especially when it comes to the rating of intelligence.