Cryptids

[DeM0nFiRe]

They actually don't know yet whether it is finite or infinite, however, it is also possible for the universe to be finite along one axis and infinite along another.

The other side is that, if it is finite, in any direction, the latest evidence from HST is that it is expanding quickly and accelerating. This would mean that even if it is not currently infinite, it will grow infinitely.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.html


@Silverwind: The number of atoms in the universe isn't known, and the number of atoms in the universe can change. (The laws of conservation of mass and energy are very simplistic, there are actually exceptions. Theoretically, matter can just kind of poof into existence. If you want to go beyond theoretical, we already have turned matter into energy.)

And yeah, as como said, the difference between impossible and improbable is absolutely huge when you are talking about something that might be infinite or infinitely expanding. Impossible is one in infinity, improbably is one in a googolplex. If it is one in infinity, then the set will never occur (IE, infinity planets can never be checked for life) and so it would be statistically impossible. However, you know how many googolplex there are in infinity? Infinity! That should mean that we will find an infinite number of planets with life on them.

 

[silver wind]

Correction: the estimated number of atoms in the universe.

Can't say I understood what you said (what on hell is googolplex).
I think your (and como's) problem is, that you check the probability of something that already happened.
What is the chance I'm sitting in my room, this second in time, replying to a user that happens to be named DeM0nFiRe ?
It is virtually impossible, yet it happened. Then you might say- see? the impossible just happened!
Statistics don't work that way.
Statistics only apply to something that did not happen yet. The chance a dice falls on 3 is 1/6 even after you throw it and get 3. Statistics only apply to something random- I am not random. Since I reply here often, it's very likely that I'll make the aforementioned post. If you know me, you can even guess what I'm about to say.
This weird logic, in no way, proves aliens exist.

On a side note, it matters not if there are aliens out there, 156 billion lightyears away. What we want to know is if they are close enough to visit us- that makes the search area very finite.
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, according to the laws of physics. If you ask me, the whole travel-through-worm-hole is a fairy tale for adults.

 

[Ellie]

Even if worm hole travel were possible the worm holes themselves would have to be close enough to both the origin planet and our planet for us or them to travel to; and even then wormhole theory is just that, a theory.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Scientifically speaking, you are random. I don't think this is a discussion about religion, so let's keep it scientific.

Also, "virtually impossible" means nothing. Virtually impossible is 1 in 9999999999999999 chance. But we are talking about a total data set of possibly infinity. Infinity / 9999999999999999 is still infinity.

 

[silver wind]

You misunderstood me. I'm not random = I'm a logical human being.
Human beings usually have a reason to do what they do- they are predictable (to a certain point).

I refuse to discuss infinity. Infinity is not a subject you can research to get solid, definite results. (I left my Physics curse in high-school after my teacher said the sun-rays are assumed to be parallel - how can you base a calculation on something that isn't true?).
This pseudo-math isn't the kind used to build airplanes, it has no use in everyday life. You can never test your calculations to know if they're correct. This is all empty talk.
Surprise surprise, whatever you do to infinity it stays infinity. Leave this nonsense for philosophy students. :|

 

[Ellie]

Then don't; other people however are welcome to.

 

[EnderX]

On cryptids:
Good chance of some being out there, but not the most commonly referenced ones - for about the reasons mentioned above. You might, in theory, manage to hide one or two Sasquatch out on the West Coast of the US, but not enough for a viable breeding colony. In other parts of the world, however, that changes. I recall reading about a species of Gorilla found in Africa some time after scientists began declaring that part of the world to well explored for a large land animal to remain hiding. In the sea, of course, there's a better chance.

On Loch Ness:
From what I understand, the lake is extremely murky. Even going down into it isn't enough if you can't have your cameras spot anything more than a short distance away from your craft. And the two components I've heard of that the 'cannot be anything that large' argument resides on are lack of food and lack of remains - both are neatly handled by my favorite theory. I don't really think anything's actually in the Loch, but the theory I enjoy the most runs that Nessie is, in fact, a form of giant sea slug. Think about it - smaller food requirements than the traditional 'plesiosaur' version, and no bones...assuming the flesh simply decays after death, no remains.

On Dragons:
Neither the Eastern Lung nor the Western Dragon proper could exist on your standard, but at least three subsets might have some real-world basis. Wyrms are non-legged dragons, essentially giant snakes. Drakes are four-legged megalizards - it's possible those might be based on some of the dinosaurs (Dino fossils were at one time sold in China as dragon bones; may still be in some areas for all I know) or the larger monitor lizards...yeah, the Komodo Dragon might qualify as a small drake, especially considering the species does tend to have a dangerous breath (halitosis) and a poisonous bite. (Note for the nitpickers: if I'm remembering correctly, the term is correct - what I've read indicates that Komodo Dragons don't use venom, they give their victims gangrene drawn from the rotting remains of the last set of victims.) Finally, Wyverns bear two legs and two wings - perhaps based off of some variant of pterosaur?

 

[silver wind]

I find it likely that dragon legends were created as an early "paleontology science".
When ancient researchers found giant bones in the ground, they had to come up with SOME theory. They were close- giant predatory lizards did live in the past.
So they probably collected 'Dragon' bones, re-built the skeleton to the best of their knowledge, and showed them off to the public.
The huge bones must have captured people's imagination, so they wrote songs/stories about those mighty lizards. Wings, poison gas and fire breath were added later for dramatic flare. Alternatively, the horrifying lizards got associated with the devil, hence the bat wings and the horns, and maybe the fire too.

This is my theory, but I admit giant slugs are much more exciting :p