3 ms·

It tells us very little, there are more stars in the universe than sand grains on earth http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/09/17/161096233/which-is-greater-

by givan 12y ago

It tells us very little, there are more stars in the universe than sand grains on earth http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/09/17/161096233/which-is-greater-the-number-of-sand-grains-on-earth-or-stars-in-the-sky http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/09/17/161096233/which... and we don't even have the technology to properly search our solar system, our sand grain.

cLeEOGPw 12y ago
Considering prospects of living, stars in other galaxies are irrelevant, because they are unreachable. We should, at least now, look at the closest stars around us, which are very few. There's reason to believe even these might be unreachable for us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- millstone 12y ago
  Do you mean reachability in terms of a spaceship? If so, wouldn't intergalactic communication be pretty incredible, even if it was only one-way?
- vorg 12y ago
  There could be other filters not listed. I sometimes wonder why on the Earth the observed sizes of the Sun and the Moon are the same, and recently wondered if the effect is far better eyesight in some land animals, including humans, than would otherwise be the case. If the Moon looked larger than the Sun, the Sun would disappear more frequently and for a longer time in the daytime, and there'd be no corona; if vice versa, the eclipse would only ever be partial. Because the corona lasts 5 minutes only, once a lifetime, animals will stare at it in surprise. Only animals with eyes which won't be damaged by sustained bursts of daylight will pass on their genes. Perhaps it also gives rise to animals which can see both in the dark and in the bright light. Is such type of eyesight essential for higher intelligence? If so, it's part of the Great Filter, reducing the odds of intelligent life by orders of magnitude.

by givan 12y ago

cLeEOGPw 12y ago

Considering prospects of living, stars in other galaxies are irrelevant, because they are unreachable. We should, at least now, look at the closest stars around us, which are very few. There's reason to believe even these might be unreachable for us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
millstone 12y ago
Do you mean reachability in terms of a spaceship? If so, wouldn't intergalactic communication be pretty incredible, even if it was only one-way?
vorg 12y ago
There could be other filters not listed. I sometimes wonder why on the Earth the observed sizes of the Sun and the Moon are the same, and recently wondered if the effect is far better eyesight in some land animals, including humans, than would otherwise be the case. If the Moon looked larger than the Sun, the Sun would disappear more frequently and for a longer time in the daytime, and there'd be no corona; if vice versa, the eclipse would only ever be partial. Because the corona lasts 5 minutes only, once a lifetime, animals will stare at it in surprise. Only animals with eyes which won't be damaged by sustained bursts of daylight will pass on their genes. Perhaps it also gives rise to animals which can see both in the dark and in the bright light. Is such type of eyesight essential for higher intelligence? If so, it's part of the Great Filter, reducing the odds of intelligent life by orders of magnitude.