What is the most astounding fact about the universe?

Click here and disable ads!

For me, lately, is how chaotic and complex systems are so prevalent throughout life and throughout the universe. How quantum uncertainty has thrown Newtonian predictability through a loop, yet on the other hand we can characterize these chaotic and complex systems by looking towards almost extraneous subjects such as biological evolution, thermodynamics, and feedback loops.

But Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a more eloquent answer:

I'd say the most astounding fact is that if the force of gravity were any stronger or any weaker by a tiny fraction, this universe would not have existed. The kind of force required to form the elements that exist would not have been available.

It does not undermine or validate my point. That's another issue, and I merely discussed how one small variable being different could have meant no universe.

I always liked this one:



This photo plus the Drake Equation answers the question "Do extraterrestrials exist?" as a definitive YES.

This:

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”

This means that the genus Homo must be renamed Astrum.

Technically it would mean no perceptable universe. Who's to say that the universe hasn't banged and crunched countless times before until someone (us) were around to perceive it. And when we die it might happen again, taking what would be, in our concept of time, inconceivable amounts of aeons till someone else has been born and they are able to perceive it and see themselves as we do now.

If youre referring to the Carl Sagan quote i posted, no it does not mean that.

The fact that every living organism on earth, and likely the universe if life exists outside this earth, descends from one common ancestor, the "first" living organism to have ever existed.

It's simple enough to say something like that, but thinking of the implications of such a thing is terrifying/profound.

Not necessarily. Any equation where a constant is supplied by assumption rather than tried and tested fact is shoddy science. We do not have proof that x amount of civilizations corresponds to x amount of stars or whatever. Even if we are to assume the odds to be 0.0000000001 or magnitudes smaller. It still isn't based on FACTS.

I understand what you are saying, but how does calculus work? You integrate a limit from 1 to infinity and you get a proof.

That exposure contains billions of galaxies with billions of stars in each galaxy.

From wiki:

So you take the surface area of a 1 meter sphere and divide by 1 mm^2, multiply that by the number of galaxies in the exposure, then apply the Drake Equation. The numbers are something like 10^24 stars...and that's just what we can see with our primitive tools.

One could argue that ETs don't exist, but with those kinds of numbers...it's heliocentrism all over again.

Again, those kinds of numbers are based on the assumption that L = whatever variable they decide for it. If you take any tiny number and multiply it by a bunch of other variables based on a limitless vast space (the universe) the number will always look favorable if the equation itself is trying to prove the existence of something by relying on self-supplied numbers. It doesn't answer the question "do ET exist?", it answers another entirely different and utterly meaningless question "if ET exist in the proportion that we have arbitrarily designed, then how many intelligent ET civilizations are in existence RIGHT NOW?"

It isn't heliocentric to dismiss an equation with arbitrarily designed constants. It simply does not stand against the test of science.

God of course. Anybody who says eitherwise is a clueless faggot.

Every atom heavier than helium. Not just human atoms.

The most astounding fact is that we exist.

Pretty much this.

Cloaked Figure

The scientific process attempts to isolate the best predictive theory of phenomena observed in the past, it is no better than a court of reasonable doubt. It does not claim to describe 'reality' or the 'the truth'.

Statistically speaking, if you believe there is no life in > 10^24 star systems, you are today's equivalent of a theocratic heliocentrist, worse actually.

Yes. The scientific method does not state fact, but simply eliminates possibilities. This is true. And this is the very reason why I am calling the Drake Equation a pseudo/fake science. Again, basing a constant variable on an assumption does not produce a result usable in actual non-speculative (imaginary) science. It has no applications in terms of answering the question at hand. Statistically speaking does not enter the discussion here. We have absolutely no knowledge on the subject at hand and thus cannot make any observations based simply on the vastness of the universe. Claiming that I am "today's equivalent of a theocratic heliocentrist" makes no sense. That's a silly term anyways, since it carries a different connotation from what you are trying to say (unless you think I am racist against aliens or something, lol) and tries to paint me as a Luddite when I am just saying that based on our current body of knowledge about the universe, we cannot make any hard statistical facts about how many alien civilizations exist or whatever, since we don't even know if they exist yet. It's like saying that a house "is so big, they're sure to have at least 5 saunas!" when you don't know if there is even one sauna in the house.

Well we know of one, so it's reasonable to assume others exist.

The more I learn about astrophysics, biology and physics and mathematics and even programming, the more I feel that there must be God. You'd think the more you learn, the more you turn towards secularism- but that's not true for me. The more I learn about these wonders and miracles, and their amazing explanations of which we understand but a tiny fraction, the more I want to believe in a loving and wise God.

If god did exist, he'd be a fucking asshole.

Let's not.

The more I learn, the more I realize that the possible causes of anything are endless. There could be a God. There could not be a God. It could be possible that God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Or perhaps another religion is true. Or perhaps the "true" religion hasn't even been found yet.

Not that I have turned towards secularism. But I have gained much more open mindedness and expectations of unexpected explanations.

Well CF does have a point in that I did title this thread "fact" not "estimation", as that's all Drake's Equation really is. Not that it's a bad estimation. It's probably a very good guess, but still a guess at that. At the moment still stuck as scientific theory and not fact or law.