View Full Version : Do you think Aliens Exist?
Do you think, that amonst the stars, there are other life forms? could aliens have visited Earth? Share your answer and explain!
Rhaedas
10-22-11, 10:04 AM
Multiple answers are needed. The basic question in the poll, whether aliens exist, is also not too specific. Alien life, highly probable, given all we know so far about how life may have started here on Earth, and how many other chances there seem to be out there. Intelligent life, still probable, but we don't know the many parameters that might be needed for that to happen. Might be rare, might be commonplace where life springs up.
Second question is a difficult one. Easier question would be, have they visited? There's no good evidence that anyone has. Whether a space faring civilization can get to other stars is something we don't know yet...right now it looks like using the only propulsion we know of, action-reaction, star travel is a very, very long trip.
Do you think, that amonst the stars, there are other life forms? could aliens have visited Earth? Share your answer and explain!
Do I think that aliens exist? A strong definite... 'maybe'.
I don't have any way of knowing what's out there in the universe, so I have no way of knowing. My belief, pretty strongly held, is that we aren't the only intelligent beings. If things like us can arise once in nature, it can happen many times in many places, and it probably has.
My suspicion is that the fine biological details of earth life are awfully fortuitous, the result of how life happened to initially form and of how it subsequently evolved. I don't believe that we will encounter precisely the same kind of biochemistries elsewhere. We almost certainly won't be encountering the humanoids of popular mythology.
So what we probably aren't fully grasping today is how... alien... aliens will turn out to be if we ever encounter them. We are going to be surprised and kind of shocked. They will be far more alien than octopi or social insects. We might not even initially recognize them as alive.
(Our definition of 'life' will have to expand dramatically, I suspect.)
I don't really expect that we will be able to communicate with them, except in the most basic ways. Our human ability to process language is largely innate, hard-wired in. Aliens will doubtless communicate with one another, but the system will likely be entirely different. They might communicate chemically with phermones, or by computer-style data-dumps into each other's brains. (If they have brains.)
What they will share with us is some kind of functional equivalence. They will be organisms that perform similar functions to those we perform -- reproduction, locomotion, information processing -- but they may have some very novel and unexpectedly different ways of doing it.
I don't anticipate our being able to eat the same foods that they eat. So they are unlikely to have any desire to eat us (or vice versa). We would probably poison each other. Our planet is very inviting to us, but aliens may prefer cold methane atmospheres or something and would find our wonderful earth hellish.
There's almost zero chance that we could interbreed, form hybrids, or any of the stuff of popular belief. They probably will have something analogous to a genetic code, but its unlikely to be the same nucleic acid code that we use.
Have aliens already visited the earth? I have no way of knowing, but I've never seen any evidence of it. Are they visiting now? I don't think so.
cosmictraveler
10-22-11, 12:26 PM
To the animals that have lived on this planet for millions of years like the alligator, humans are "aliens" to them. So in a matter of speaking we are all aliens and therefore aliens do exist here, there and everywhere, they just haven't been found as yet.
Dywyddyr
10-22-11, 12:30 PM
Do you think, that amonst the stars, there are other life forms?
Probably. It would be disappointing if there weren't.
could aliens have visited Earth?
Unlikely given the technology required.
Do I think that aliens exist? A strong definite... 'maybe'.
I don't have any way of knowing what's out there in the universe, so I have no way of knowing. My belief, pretty strongly held, is that we aren't the only intelligent beings. If things like us can arise once in nature, it can happen many times in many places, and it probably has.
My suspicion is that the fine biological details of earth life are awfully fortuitous, the result of how life happened to initially form and of how it subsequently evolved. I don't believe that we will encounter precisely the same kind of biochemistries elsewhere. We almost certainly won't be encountering the humanoids of popular mythology.
So what we probably aren't fully grasping today is how... alien... aliens will turn out to be if we ever encounter them. We are going to be surprised and kind of shocked. They will be far more alien than octopi or social insects. We might not even initially recognize them as alive.
(Our definition of 'life' will have to expand dramatically, I suspect.)
I don't really expect that we will be able to communicate with them, except in the most basic ways. Our human ability to process language is largely innate, hard-wired in. Aliens will doubtless communicate with one another, but the system will likely be entirely different. They might communicate chemically with phermones, or by computer-style data-dumps into each other's brains. (If they have brains.)
What they will share with us is some kind of functional equivalence. They will be organisms that perform similar functions to those we perform -- reproduction, locomotion, information processing -- but they may have some very novel and unexpectedly different ways of doing it.
I don't anticipate our being able to eat the same foods that they eat. So they are unlikely to have any desire to eat us (or vice versa). We would probably poison each other. Our planet is very inviting to us, but aliens may prefer cold methane atmospheres or something and would find our wonderful earth hellish.
There's almost zero chance that we could interbreed, form hybrids, or any of the stuff of popular belief. They probably will have something analogous to a genetic code, but its unlikely to be the same nucleic acid code that we use.
Have aliens already visited the earth? I have no way of knowing, but I've never seen any evidence of it. Are they visiting now? I don't think so.
Well said
Pincho Paxton
10-22-11, 03:55 PM
Easily yes.
Easily yes.
Why would you say that?
Unlikely given the technology required.HOw does one go about calculating that liklihood? or even estimating?
Dywyddyr
10-22-11, 04:39 PM
Given the distances between stars (let alone distances between inhabited planets - whatever they are) and the limitation on possible speed of travel how likely do you think visitation is?
Given the distances between stars (let alone distances between inhabited planets - whatever they are) and the limitation on possible speed of travel how likely do you think visitation is?To answer I would have to feel confident about how commonly sentient life arises, how long ago examples arose, rates of technological advancement - and how this may vary between sentient species, in a sense what pieces/breakthroughs we are missing that allow some of what seems insurmountable or at least incredibly hard, and perhaps some other factors - hm, if there is a technological way to find other sentient species over long distances - iow greater distances then the exanding shell of tv and radio broadcasts - and at what stage sentient species tend to get this technology.
I really don't know how to get into even a comfortable guess.
I mean imagine what just 150 years has done with us - and perhaps primates are really slow advancers in the Universe.
Imagine the person in 1870 being told there was an alien race who could fly through the air across the world, fly to the moon and walk around on it, speak into little boxes to people in China, make an explosion hotter than the sun and so on. And then tell them it's actually his species.
So how can I make a guess about what a meager 1000 years would accomplish. And once we are talking in galactic terms, 1000 years may be at least a couple o orders of magnitude off the oldest sentient civilizations.
Who knows?
Pincho Paxton
10-22-11, 07:45 PM
Why would you say that?
I say it because of Fractals. Earth is a whole bunch of repeating patterns. Then you look out, and moons are repeating, and you look out, and suns are repeating, and you look out, and Jupiters are repeating. And you look out, and black holes are repeating, and you look out, and Galaxies are repeating. It's not totally random, or lucky, or chaotic. Particles stack in certain ways, and it increases the likelihood of repetition.
I say it because of Fractals. Earth is a whole bunch of repeating patterns. Then you look out, and moons are repeating, and you look out, and suns are repeating, and you look out, and Jupiters are repeating. And you look out, and black holes are repeating, and you look out, and Galaxies are repeating. It's not totally random, or lucky, or chaotic. Particles stack in certain ways, and it increases the likelihood of repetition.
Nicely Explained :)
my personal belief, and not at all scientific, is that slime life may be fairly common. however intelligent life is rare and if one considers the infinite nature of the universe this rarity makes it as good as non-existent as far as we are concerned. so as to whether it has visited earth i would be on the no side.
but it sure would be interesting if we were visited by some aliens in my lifetime.
RedRabbit
10-23-11, 08:32 PM
I think life might be rare and intelligent life would obviously be rarer, but I have to think that it wouldn't be a lot rarer. If any life was to arise on a planet it would be advantageous for that life to develop into a more intelligent lifeform.
All comets and supernovae aside of course. That'd sort the men from the slime.
I think life might be rare and intelligent life would obviously be rarer, but I have to think that it wouldn't be a lot rarer.
If any life was to arise on a planet it would be advantageous for that life to develop into a more intelligent lifeform.
absolutely
All comets and supernovae aside of course. That'd sort the men from the slime.
absolutely
Do you think, that amonst the stars, there are other life forms?
If it happened here I don't see why it can't happen elsewhere.
Could aliens have visited Earth?
Due to the size of the universe I'd say that it's highly improbable.
Due to the size of the universe I'd say that it's highly improbable.
indeed
visitations can only occur from the furthest imaginable point. :D
indeed
visitations can only occur from the furthest imaginable point. :D
The distances involved are, well, astronomical.
We've been transmitting signals that another civilization could intercept for less than 100 years.
How many light years away is the closest planet?
What are the odds it has intelligent life?
I'll stick with highly improbable.
Once you've eliminated the impossible, whats left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth - Sherlock Holmes.
cosmictraveler
10-24-11, 08:13 PM
We have millions of illegal ones here already!:eek::D
Rhaedas
10-24-11, 08:15 PM
Once you've eliminated the impossible, whats left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth - Sherlock Holmes.
We're a long way from eliminating all the impossibles yet.
The Esotericist
10-24-11, 08:47 PM
We're a long way from eliminating all the impossibles yet.
Indeed. I don't think we'll ever be able to eliminate what is possible and what is not. Just a hunch though. The more we advance, the more it seems to be clear, any thing is possible.
How many light years away is the closest planet?
What are the odds it has intelligent life?
i have no idea
you?
Ophiolite
10-25-11, 06:27 AM
Once you've eliminated the impossible, whats left, no matter how improbable, must be the truthis clear evidence you just haven't looked hard enough - Me.
i have no idea
you?
Nope - but we haven't heard any transmissions from them if they are in the neighborhood.
wellwisher
10-25-11, 09:01 AM
I believe that aliens are the same as the gods of mythology. They are a modern version of mytholgy. Both are higher than humans and live in the heavens. Each uses the technology of the day but the gods and aliens have better stuff.
The ancients had a sword, therefore their gods would also have a sword maybe with theor versino of a particle beam. Since today we use space ships instead of chariots, our alien mythology will have better space ships with added features that we consider the future. If future tech had levitating platforms the aliens will then hae these but better ones. If you watch star trek, aliens had advanced computers with tape drives, but better tape drives. That was the state of the art then, so the aliens had that. Robots were futuristic then, so aliens defintately needed robots but better ones. That did what human hoped to achieve.
The entire mytholgy effect plays again and again through history because it is a projection from the unconscious mind, with projection like a movie overlay onto reality. This movie will have a flavor of the times. Since the unconscious is wired into the main frame of the brain, the projection or mytholgy movie overlsy will be better to represent this.
Dywyddyr
10-25-11, 09:07 AM
I believe that aliens are the same as the gods of mythology.
So your contention is that "aliens" are a myth?
This does not address the OP.
You're off at a completely different angle to the question posed.
It may very well be that aliens as written about in popular publications and the claims made about them are a form of modern day mythology.
This does not, however, reflect upon or even address the question of: do you think that alien life ACTUALLY exists in the universe? (Regardless of whether they have "contacted us" or not).
:rolleyes:
Originally Posted by gmilam
How many light years away is the closest planet?
What are the odds it has intelligent life?
Check out this 3D New Worlds Atlas (http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_index.cfm) that shows the location of extra solar planets.
Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis
sethbaum.com/ac/2011_ET-Scenarios.pdf
THE SEARCH FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE (SETI ...
astro.wsu.edu/allen/courses/astr450/annurev.astro.39.1.511.pdf
you can also google 'the great filter", "sustainability scenario", answer to the fermi paradox.
then you have simulation universe where the aliens are so advanced we are in one of their constructs.
http://www.nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf
why it might not be a good idea to actually find aliens, the great filter scenario.
basically you can take your pick as to what to believe and stand a good chance of being correct. to some degree. ;-)
Pincho Paxton
10-25-11, 07:36 PM
Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis
sethbaum.com/ac/2011_ET-Scenarios.pdf
THE SEARCH FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE (SETI ...
astro.wsu.edu/allen/courses/astr450/annurev.astro.39.1.511.pdf
you can also google 'the great filter", "sustainability scenario", answer to the fermi paradox.
then you have simulation universe where the aliens are so advanced we are in one of their constructs.
http://www.nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf
why it might not be a good idea to actually find aliens, the great filter scenario.
basically you can take your pick as to what to believe and stand a good chance of being correct. to some degree. ;-)
You could have just said the reasons.. those PDF's are boring, and I never got to the reason.
Anyhoot if it was to do with Hawkins comments that Aliens are bad for the Earth because they will steal our resources.. I doubt it. If you can travel to Earth you will pass many resources on your way.
Nope - but we haven't heard any transmissions from them if they are in the neighborhood.
please bite and do the search
please bite and do the search
Granted I don't have SETI in my back yard, but I haven't heard of anyone hearing ANYTHING "artificial" in the cosmos. If you have any RELIABLE sources, please share.
pardon
i was still harping on planets
anyways, possible contenders start at 20 light years away
current tech will take 60,000 years to get there....i think
I looked at Origin's link (above) for planets. They have found more than I realized. Although most seem to be gas giants.
We still only have a sample of one as far as life goes. So it's very difficult to determine odds from that.
Don't get me wrong, I suspect the universe is teaming with life. I just don't see any evidence that any has ever visited here. And it appears that we do have a universal speed limit, so it could very well be that interstellar space travel is just not practical for any level of technology.
“ Originally Posted by Boris2
Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis
sethbaum.com/ac/2011_ET-Scenarios.pdf
THE SEARCH FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE (SETI ...
astro.wsu.edu/allen/courses/astr450/annurev.astro.39.1.511.pdf
you can also google 'the great filter", "sustainability scenario", answer to the fermi paradox.
then you have simulation universe where the aliens are so advanced we are in one of their constructs.
http://www.nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf
why it might not be a good idea to actually find aliens, the great filter scenario.
basically you can take your pick as to what to believe and stand a good chance of being correct. to some degree. ;-)
You could have just said the reasons.. those PDF's are boring, and I never got to the reason.
Anyhoot if it was to do with Hawkins comments that Aliens are bad for the Earth because they will steal our resources.. I doubt it. If you can travel to Earth you will pass many resources on your way.
what of biological resources though ?
pardon
i was still harping on planets
anyways, possible contenders start at 20 light years away
current tech will take 60,000 years to get there....i thinkAnd how much has our technology changed our travel abilities in the last 150 years?
What will one thousand years do? We can't even guess. And sure, there might be a limit, the speed of light, but we are not really in any position to judge what we ourselves might be capable of in just a couple of centuries, let alone what other species can learn in such time periods. And given that some might be orders of magnitude older than us than that
this is all speculative.
I don't know if you fit the category, but it seems to me that many people who dislike the intuitive assertions of theists and other believers in anomalous phenomena, are quite content to make assertions of liklihood based on their own intuitions
as if it wasn't merely hubris-tic guesswork.
Pincho Paxton
10-26-11, 10:46 AM
And how much has our technology changed our travel abilities in the last 150 years?
What will one thousand years do? We can't even guess. And sure, there might be a limit, the speed of light, but we are not really in any position to judge what we ourselves might be capable of in just a couple of centuries, let alone what other species can learn in such time periods. And given that some might be orders of magnitude older than us than that
this is all speculative.
I don't know if you fit the category, but it seems to me that many people who dislike the intuitive assertions of theists and other believers in anomalous phenomena, are quite content to make assertions of liklihood based on their own intuitions
as if it wasn't merely hubris-tic guesswork.
Or... if you are more intelligent than the average person you might say 10 years! :D
And how much has our technology changed our travel abilities in the last 150 years?
Well there were incredible changes in the 50 years from 1890 to 1940. We went from horses to jets and rockets. Unfortuantely there has been little added since 1940. Our technology has progressed significantly, but our modes of transport have stagnated. The first testing of ion drive technology was even in that time frame.
That doesn't really say much about what the future holds but in the 50'S people assumed we would inhabit the solar system by now based on the rate of changes they saw.
No one voted "No" and 60% of us voted "Yes". So...We all believe in Aliens?
Since when does 60% = ALL?
not saying ALL, <the majority>
Telemachus Rex
10-26-11, 03:18 PM
No one voted "No" and 60% of us voted "Yes". So...We all believe in Aliens?
No. A "Maybe" vote is not a secret "yes."
Personally I think there is other life in the universe, though see no reason to assume it's multicellular (let alone intelligent) without better information.
It's the "and they have been to Earth" part that I'd say a categorical "No" to myself.
Pincho Paxton
10-26-11, 04:34 PM
No. A "Maybe" vote is not a secret "yes."
Personally I think there is other life in the universe, though see no reason to assume it's multicellular (let alone intelligent) without better information.
It's the "and they have been to Earth" part that I'd say a categorical "No" to myself.
You don't see a reason? Ok.. you don't see a reason.
Personally I think there is other life in the universe, though see no reason to assume it's multicellular (let alone intelligent) without better information.
I see no reason to think there isn't intelligent life. After all, it happened here. (Ignoring debates on if there is actually intelligent life here.) I see no reason to think that we're special in any way.
You could have just said the reasons.. those PDF's are boring, and I never got to the reason.
tough. it wasn't about hawking and resources so you'll have to read them to find the real reason. or not.
Well there were incredible changes in the 50 years from 1890 to 1940. We went from horses to jets and rockets. Unfortuantely there has been little added since 1940. Our technology has progressed significantly, but our modes of transport have stagnated. The first testing of ion drive technology was even in that time frame.
That doesn't really say much about what the future holds but in the 50'S people assumed we would inhabit the solar system by now based on the rate of changes they saw.With the old technology we reached the moon. We have just started teleporting - albeit on puny levels. Overestimates of progress by SOME people in the 50s - I think that generalization was rather misleading - does not mean that other people cannot underestimate. In fact I would say it supports the idea that we can only be uncertain.
And we also, as I said, have no idea how many thousands of years some civilizations may be ahead of us - or whether there are any. Or whether we are rather poor improvers, always trying to make a profit rather than what the intelligent squids of XRW3837893 who learn much faster and put a global priority on travel, being frustrated by their original thicker travel medium.
Or... if you are more intelligent than the average person you might say 10 years! :DThank goodness you said 'might.'
Telemachus Rex
10-26-11, 07:15 PM
I see no reason to think there isn't intelligent life. After all, it happened here. (Ignoring debates on if there is actually intelligent life here.) I see no reason to think that we're special in any way.
Then you need to look at how multicellular life began. You see, there were two unicellular organisms...one of them somehow infiltrated the other's cell. The infiltrator then somehow wormed its own genetic code into that of its new host cell. That infiltrator then somehow transformed into what we call a "mitochondrion" (aka "the powerhouse of the cell") and provided far more energy to its host cell than the host cell ever had.
WIthout the mitochondrion, it's not clear that we would ever have had multicellular life. Remember Life started 3.5 billion years ago...and for 3 billion years there was no multicellular life. It's only in the past 500 million years that any multicellular life form has existed.
Remember, evolution has no goal, and no path. In most ways single celled life is more successful than multicellular life. It's far more abundant, even if we tend not to notice it. Evolution doesn't care how genetic material is propagated, and multicelular organisms represent an almost unfathomable increase in the amount of resources needed for that propagation. It's many orders of magnitude different.
There is no reason to believe that the absorption of the mitochondrian was anything more than a happy accident for us. What that means is that we do not have enough data to conclusively state, one way or another, how likely multicellular life forms would be. You can pretend we do know enough based on a "we are not special" assumption...but the validity of that assumption is not really known as there's no data that proves it.
It's rather like sexual reproduction. Biologists have no idea why it developed, since it seems to be measurably less reliable and more costly than asexual reproduction. We can and often do assume that aliens will have sexual reproduction of some sort even though we do not have data that shows us why it was a favored trait even on this planet.
I am not saying there is no intelligent life out there, I am simply saying we do not have the data needed to make any reasonable prediction of its likelihood. In that case, it is better to say "maybe" with the caveat "we can't really know" than to make assumptions about variables based on a single emergence of life.
The emergence of life on Earth isn't "data", it is at most a single datum. Relying on what we see here and extrapolating into the universe is to reason on the basis of a single anecdote. If I told you I saw a herd of ostriches, the analogy would be your concluding that all birds, everywhere, are 6-9 feet tall and very fast (and flightless) runners. Maybe, though, that species of bird is an outlier (i.e. ostriches really are "special" in their physical characteristics), and the reasoning from anecdote is therefore flawed.
Why do people have such a hard time saying "I don't really know" rather than expressing false certainty in accordance with their preferences? Whatever the reason, your belief is one based on faith in your assumptions, and not logically compelled.
So the logical answer is "maybe." The faith-based answer is "yes."
Do you think that Non Biological Extraterrestrials could exist?
I am not saying there is no intelligent life out there, I am simply saying we do not have the data needed to make any reasonable prediction of its likelihood. In that case, it is better to say "maybe" with the caveat "we can't really know" than to make assumptions about variables based on a single emergence of life.Agreed!
So the logical answer is "maybe." The faith-based answer is "yes." 'No' being faith based also. And I would argue any statement of liklihood without qualitification.
To say 'It is unlikely' is a claim to knowledge that can only be faith-based also. As are all the speculations on whether they have come here or not.
Why do people have such a hard time saying "I don't really know" rather than expressing false certainty in accordance with their preferences? Whatever the reason, your belief is one based on faith in your assumptions, and not logically compelled.
So the logical answer is "maybe." The faith-based answer is "yes."
I have no problems saying I don't know. It is the only logical response. I also have no reason to "assume" we are the only ones. The universe is a big place.
Telemachus Rex
10-27-11, 03:25 AM
I also have no reason to "assume" we are the only ones.
And the "maybe" answer I gave does not assume that. If I did assume that, my answer would be "no", by assumption.
Telemachus Rex
10-27-11, 03:34 AM
Agreed!
'No' being faith based also. And I would argue any statement of liklihood without qualitification.
To say 'It is unlikely' is a claim to knowledge that can only be faith-based also. As are all the speculations on whether they have come here or not.
That's certainly correct. One can say, of course that in the absence of positive evidence on their existence, it is often pointless to debate or discuss such things.
Can we say as a matter of ironclad logical proof that Oberon, King of the Elves does not dance a jig on my front lawn when no one is looking? No. But in the absence of positive evidence that he exists and is doing so, I'd be a fool to devote resources to proving his existence.
That is where assumptions come in that might tip the scale in favor if devoting resources. If one assumes we are nothing special, then it makes sense (under that assumption) to look for aliens.
Many of the assumptions one might make, though are could be colored heavily by the fact that we have only a single example of the emergence of life, and all known living organisms stem from a single source and are related. The assumptions we make should therefore, imo, be as conservative as we can manage because we are generalizing based on a single (if familiar) example.
With the old technology we reached the moon.
Agreed. It is just so damn expensive to get out of this gravity well we live in using rocket technology.
We have just started teleporting - albeit on puny levels.
We have?
nietzschefan
10-27-11, 08:51 AM
No it's very easy to say yes. He didn't say "intelligent", he didn't say our galaxy. It could be a doglike animal on some spiral arm of a galaxy in the virgo cluster. Even the most pessimistic numbers plugged into the drake equation will give you more than 1 for the whole universe. Yes is a very valid answer. Maybe even in our own solar system if you include small life like bacteria.
Pincho Paxton
10-27-11, 12:06 PM
I feel that some parts of this thread have some small relationship to this latest science news....
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111026143721.htm
adoucette
10-27-11, 12:26 PM
Even the most pessimistic numbers plugged into the drake equation will give you more than 1 for the whole universe.
Nope.
The most pessimistic number for any of the variables in the Drake Equation would be ZERO, which would make the end result equal to zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
And it is certainly not inconceivable that if it turns out that fℓ = the fraction of the planets that actually go on to develop life at some point is very low, then fi = the fraction of fℓ that actually go on to develop intelligent life and fc = the fraction of fi civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space could be zero.
Arthur
adoucette
10-27-11, 12:35 PM
I see no reason to think there isn't intelligent life. After all, it happened here. (Ignoring debates on if there is actually intelligent life here.) I see no reason to think that we're special in any way.
Well considering that it took about 4 billion years for intelligent life to form and that life on earth came close to being wiped out at least several times during that interval, and because the sun continues to get hotter, like on earth won't last another billion years (I've seen scientific estimates as low as 1/2 a billion years), I think it's fair to say that we are somewhat special.
Arthur
Dominic
10-27-11, 01:02 PM
I feel that some parts of this thread have some small relationship to this latest science news....
I noticed the paper was published in Nature
Unidentified infrared emission bands at wavelengths of 3–20 micrometres are widely observed in a range of environments in our Galaxy and in others1. Some features have been identified as the stretching and bending modes of aromatic compounds2, 3, and are commonly attributed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon molecules4, 5. The central argument supporting this attribution is that single-photon excitation of the molecule can account for the unidentified infrared emission features observed in ‘cirrus’ clouds in the diffuse interstellar medium6. Of the more than 160 molecules identified in the circumstellar and interstellar environments, however, not one is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon molecule. The detections of discrete and broad aliphatic spectral features suggest that the carrier of the unidentified infrared emission features cannot be a pure aromatic compound. Here we report an analysis of archival spectroscopic observations and demonstrate that the data are most consistent with the carriers being amorphous organic solids with a mixed aromatic–aliphatic structure. This structure is similar to that of the organic materials found in meteorites, as would be expected if the Solar System had inherited these organic materials from interstellar sources.
nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10542.html
We have?Yes. now note. The success is extremely modest and involves either information or light. But....if we can teleport information, this might mean we could make things 'at the other end'. So things could be made at the other end and information sent back. What is made at the other end could potentially be anything.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1888-teleporting-larger-objects-becomes-real-possibility.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/scientist-teleport-ions-few-meters-shifting-kirk-still-far
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/quantum-teleportation-breakthrough-could-lead-instantanous-computing
http://www.switched.com/2009/01/26/scientists-succeed-with-teleportation-experiment/
Well considering that it took about 4 billion years for intelligent life to form and that life on earth came close to being wiped out at least several times during that interval, and because the sun continues to get hotter, like on earth won't last another billion years (I've seen scientific estimates as low as 1/2 a billion years), I think it's fair to say that we are somewhat special.
Arthur
Or lucky.
My point is that we are the result of a natural process that theoretically could have happened in any suitable environment. And who knows how many other environments could be suitable for other forms of life, whatever they may be?
Even on our own planet, we have dolphins and whales which appear to be highly intelligent. But, due to a lack of opposable thumbs, they will never create technology as we have come to know and love it.
Telemachus Rex
10-27-11, 06:03 PM
No it's very easy to say yes. He didn't say "intelligent", he didn't say our galaxy. It could be a doglike animal on some spiral arm of a galaxy in the virgo cluster. Even the most pessimistic numbers plugged into the drake equation will give you more than 1 for the whole universe. Yes is a very valid answer. Maybe even in our own solar system if you include small life like bacteria.
I had written: "Personally I think there is other life in the universe, though see no reason to assume it's multicellular (let alone intelligent) without better information."
This is what sparked the narrowing of the discussion above.
Pincho Paxton
10-28-11, 06:26 AM
I had written: "Personally I think there is other life in the universe, though see no reason to assume it's multicellular (let alone intelligent) without better information."
This is what sparked the narrowing of the discussion above.
I looked at the structure of cells, very complex for their size. So I think a study of pre-cells is required to make any further opinion on the likelihood of life elsewhere. Then a study of pre-pre-cells.
nietzschefan
10-28-11, 08:13 AM
Nope.
The most pessimistic number for any of the variables in the Drake Equation would be ZERO, which would make the end result equal to zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
And it is certainly not inconceivable that if it turns out that fℓ = the fraction of the planets that actually go on to develop life at some point is very low, then fi = the fraction of fℓ that actually go on to develop intelligent life and fc = the fraction of fi civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space could be zero.
Arthur
Somehow I thought you'd be the kinda guy that would Zero out the whole Human race.
adoucette
10-28-11, 10:06 AM
Somehow I thought you'd be the kinda guy that would Zero out the whole Human race.
Nope, since we are using the equation to estimate the likelihood of OTHER communicating intelligent life in the galaxy besides our own you can't start out with the assumption that any of the values are necessarily greater than zero.
Doing that you would always have a result greater than zero and so your formula would then be starting out with a predetermined conclusion.
The net is that it is not impossible for the answer to the Drake Equation to be zero.
Arthur
nietzschefan
10-28-11, 10:10 AM
Assburgers...confirmed.
adoucette
10-28-11, 10:15 AM
Or lucky.
We seem to be very lucky
My point is that we are the result of a natural process that theoretically could have happened in any suitable environment. And who knows how many other environments could be suitable for other forms of life, whatever they may be?
Well a couple of points.
Even though earth is apparently suitable, still in 4.5 billion years apparently life only formed once, so that gives you some idea of how unlikely a process it is.
I'd put it in the catagory of a HIGHLY unusual occurance.
Secondly since it then took 4 billion years to evolve into an intelligent species that could communicate (which is what we are discussing) that is most of the life expectancy of suitable stars, it would appear that a more likely outcome would be in those highly unlikely times that life does form, that the planet doesn't remain habitable long enough for intelligent life to evolve.
Arthur
adoucette
10-28-11, 10:17 AM
Assburgers...confirmed.
So apparently your doctor confirmed your diagnosis.
You know we could have saved you the time and trouble since your condition is friggin obvious.
Arthur
We seem to be very lucky
Well a couple of points.
Even though earth is apparently suitable, still in 4.5 billion years apparently life only formed once, so that gives you some idea of how unlikely a process it is.
I'd put it in the catagory of a HIGHLY unusual occurance.
Secondly since it then took 4 billion years to evolve into an intelligent species that could communicate (which is what we are discussing) that is most of the life expectancy of suitable stars, it would appear that a more likely outcome would be in those highly unlikely times that life does form, that the planet doesn't remain habitable long enough for intelligent life to evolve.
Arthur
Then again, we only have one example to work with. (“Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy") As far as we know, we could be one of the planets that had to ride the "special" bus.
adoucette
10-28-11, 05:14 PM
Then again, we only have one example to work with. (“Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy") As far as we know, we could be one of the planets that had to ride the "special" bus.
I think it's more special then you give it credit for.
A good case can be made that without our huge moon, life on earth would not be possible. and from what we can see, a moon like ours is not common.
Arthur
I think it's more special then you give it credit for.
and the reason why i don't think intelligent life is common, or even uncommon but existing, in the galaxy. we are "special" and a unique set of circumstances has created us and our biosphere.
@adoucette --
Even though earth is apparently suitable, still in 4.5 billion years apparently life only formed once, so that gives you some idea of how unlikely a process it is.
Well of course it only happened once(or possibly twice with the life from that event being wiped out very early on), after there was extant life the conditions were absolutely hostile towards new life(not having had the chance to adapt and evolve like the older lifeforms). This doesn't speak so much to the probability of abiogenesis so much as it does to the conditions necessary for it to occur. As the Earth is now there are hardly any free(i.e. unused) organic materials around which would be necessary for new life to emerge.
I'd put it in the catagory of a HIGHLY unusual occurance
I would too, but not necessarily for that reason. Regardless of just how improbable it is, it has happened at least once so we know that it's possible. Given that it's possible in the right circumstances and the unfathomable size of the universe, I'd say that it's still highly likely that there's some form of life out there somewhere. What form of life it is, or even if it would be recognizable as life to us, is something that nobody can answer yet.
Of course, even if there is life out there, and even if it is intelligent, it's still highly unlikely that it could be communicating with us or even visiting us. The complications involved with interstellar and/or intergalactic travel(what with the laws of thermodynamics being what they are) means that any species which was advanced enough to communicate with us would have almost no possible reasons to do so. If they want/need resources(biological or otherwise) they could just make them(we can do it now so it's a safe assumption that a more advanced species could do the same only better). If they need space then they would have the technology needed to terraform planets of their choosing. They stand to gain nothing by interacting with us.
A good case can be made that without our huge moon, life on earth would not be possible.
I'd like to see you make that case because so far as I can tell you're pulling this out of your ass.
and from what we can see, a moon like ours is not common.[quote]
Irrelevant. If we've detected others(and we have) then we can easily see that there would likely be trillions of them out there somewhere.
@Boris2 --
[quote]we are "special" and a unique set of circumstances has created us and our biosphere.
1. You can't possibly know this.
2. Even if you could know this you'd have to explain just how you discovered that our planet and circumstances are unique in all the cosmos as this implies a knowledge source beyond even Google.
Well a couple of points.
Even though earth is apparently suitable, still in 4.5 billion years apparently life only formed once, so that gives you some idea of how unlikely a process it is.
How would we know that? That's a bit like having a jar full of marbles - which for all we know while we are away hundreds of marbles are being tossed at it - and saying, see it only got filled once, this jar getting filled is a highly unlikely occurance.
I'd put it in the catagory of a HIGHLY unusual occurance.
Secondly since it then took 4 billion years to evolve into an intelligent species that could communicate (which is what we are discussing) that is most of the life expectancy of suitable stars, it would appear that a more likely outcome would be in those highly unlikely times that life does form, that the planet doesn't remain habitable long enough for intelligent life to evolve.
Is our sun going to be a problem in the near future? Is it an odd Sun?
Isn't this basing ideas about a whole category one a single instance?
Of course, that's what we have to work with, but this kind of hypothesizing would not get anywhere near passing peer review as science.
adoucette
10-28-11, 07:20 PM
I'd like to see you make that case because so far as I can tell you're pulling this out of your ass.
Nah, well known http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/33/moon2.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=moon-life-tides
etc
Pincho Paxton
10-28-11, 07:34 PM
A moon isn't at all rare though is it. Our own planets have moons.
adoucette
10-28-11, 09:18 PM
A moon isn't at all rare though is it. Our own planets have moons.
It's not just having a moon, it's having one the size of the Earth's moon in relation to the earth, sufficient to moderate our seasons and cause the tides that help to moderate our weather.
None of the others even come close to the dynamics of our system.
We got one by a relatively improbable event, a Mars size collision that was sufficiently a glancing blow to create this unique dual system.
Arthur
@adoucette --
In your first link it mentions abiogenesis occurring in the oceans due to solar irradiance, and while this is the most commonly accepted theory it's far from the only one. Another good source of energy for abiogenesis would have been thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean, so even without the moon hitting the FF button through increased tides, abiogenesis still could have occurred. And your second link states the same thing but actually goes on to refute your position that the moon was vital for abiogenesis by explicitly stating that all the moon did was speed up the process.
To say that it was a vital component for life is a gross exaggeration. The moon may have been necessary for intelligent life to emerge as quickly as it did(though we can't even say that for sure because we have a sample size of one), but that's not the same thing as the moon being vital for the emergence of life itself. Taking longer to occur is not the same thing as not occurring.
(Hint: It's usually a good idea to actually read the entire article you're citing to support your argument.)
Do you have any links which make better arguments, you know, ones that might actually support your position? Or is this what pretty much all of them say?
Ophiolite
10-28-11, 10:11 PM
We got one by a relatively improbable event, a Mars size collision that was sufficiently a glancing blow to create this unique dual system.There is good reason to think this may not be so improbable. Current views on planetary formation envisage the creation of many Moon to Mars sized planetesimals, which then collide, coallesce and form the terrestrial planets.
There is good evidence to suggest that all four terrestial planets may have experienced major collisions towards the end of their formation:
Mercury - the abnormally thin mantle
Venus - the anomalous retrograde rotation
Earth - the moon
Mars - the crustal dichtomy
While a collision clearly does not ensure the formation of a large moon, the seeming ubiquity of collisions greatly enhances the probability.
Telemachus Rex
10-28-11, 10:39 PM
I looked at the structure of cells, very complex for their size. So I think a study of pre-cells is required to make any further opinion on the likelihood of life elsewhere. Then a study of pre-pre-cells.
You are absolutely right. I was using the word "personally" in "[p]ersonally I think there is other life in the universe . . ." to indicate that that was my subjective belief, not something I believe is compelled by the evidence. In other words, I do not believe there is any strictly logical proof that I am correct in my belief, as that too would require more knowledge about how life arose on Earth (and how it might arise elsewhere) than we actually have.
It would ultimately require that we know more about the very first, pre-life, self-replicating molecules that formed and the likelihood of self-replicating molecules forming under a variety of possible conditions.
You are absolutely right. I was using the word "personally" in "[p]ersonally I think there is other life in the universe . . ." to indicate that that was my subjective belief, not something I believe is compelled by the evidence. In other words, I do not believe there is any strictly logical proof that I am correct in my belief, as that too would require more knowledge about how life arose on Earth (and how it might arise elsewhere) than we actually have.
It would ultimately require that we know more about the very first, pre-life, self-replicating molecules that formed and the likelihood of self-replicating molecules forming under a variety of possible conditions.
Bingo! We have limited knowledge of one example. But, unless you want to invoke a supernatural entity, then we have to assume we arose by natural process. If it happened here, it could happen elsewhere. Combining that with the size of the universe leads me to suspect (as opposed to believe) that life has probably happened elsewhere.
adoucette
10-29-11, 04:01 PM
@adoucette --
In your first link it mentions abiogenesis occurring in the oceans due to solar irradiance, and while this is the most commonly accepted theory it's far from the only one. Another good source of energy for abiogenesis would have been thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean, so even without the moon hitting the FF button through increased tides, abiogenesis still could have occurred. And your second link states the same thing but actually goes on to refute your position that the moon was vital for abiogenesis by explicitly stating that all the moon did was speed up the process.
To say that it was a vital component for life is a gross exaggeration. The moon may have been necessary for intelligent life to emerge as quickly as it did(though we can't even say that for sure because we have a sample size of one), but that's not the same thing as the moon being vital for the emergence of life itself. Taking longer to occur is not the same thing as not occurring.
(Hint: It's usually a good idea to actually read the entire article you're citing to support your argument.)
Do you have any links which make better arguments, you know, ones that might actually support your position? Or is this what pretty much all of them say?
The question you asked is if I just made it up that a good case could be made that without the moon life on earth might not be possible.
I just posted a few links to show that I didn't as you suggested, "pull it out of my ass".
I did a quick search and didn't find any great hits but enough for you to see that the idea has been long discussed as to the severe negative impact on the earth's climate, and thus evolution of complex life, if there were no moon as large as ours is.
If you are interested you can find much more along those lines.
The Moon has been a stabilizing factor for the axis of rotation of the Earth. If you look at Mars, for instance, that planet has wobbled quite dramatically on its axis over time due to the gravitational influence of all the other planets in the solar system. Because of this obliquity change, the ice that is now at the poles on Mars would sometimes drift to the equator. But the Earth’s moon has helped stabilize our planet so that its axis of rotation stays in the same direction. For this reason, we had much less climatic change than if the Earth had been alone. And this has changed the way life evolved on Earth, allowing for the emergence of more complex multi-cellular organisms compared to a planet where drastic climatic change would allow only small, robust organisms to survive.
http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=2507
Arthur
From the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
"The Universe-some information to help you live in it.
Area: Infinite.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy offers this definition of the word "Infinite".
Infinite: Bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some. Much bigger than that in fact, really amazingly immense, a totally stunning size, "wow, that's big", time. Infinity is just so big that by comparison, bigness itself looks really titchy. Gigantic multiplied by colossal multiplied by staggeringly huge is the sort of concept we're trying to get across here.
Population: None.
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."
@adoucette --
Your argument was that life on Earth wouldn't be possible if it weren't for the moon, however none of your links back that up. Was the moon an important factor in the evolution of life? Of course it was, something that size near the planet would have an effect on just about everything. However that does not prove it to be a vital component for abiogenesis.
The arguments made by the scientists in the links you posted are fine, I'm not arguing with them. But each one of them so far as outright contradicted you by saying that the presence of the moon merely sped up the process, that the process was already under way. And even that is just considering one of the possible theories of abiogenesis. Bottom line is this, you made a statement and none of the links you posted to back it up actually do.
2. Even if you could know this you'd have to explain just how you discovered that our planet and circumstances are unique in all the cosmos as this implies a knowledge source beyond even Google.
i try to keep the discussion somewhat within the realms of science and what is possible. so therefore i limit my speculations on aliens to this galaxy. and even then to locales that are relatively close by. it is really pointless speculating on what may be on the "other side" of an infinite universe or even in another galaxy.
i try to keep the discussion somewhat within the realms of science and what is possible. I am not sure those two realms are compatible. Speculation about what is possible is not science. It might contribute to research, in early stages, but here is just a bunch of wild guesses on most people's parts. The moment someone weighs in on liklihood, it has nothing to do with science.
adoucette
10-30-11, 07:21 AM
@adoucette --
Your argument was that life on Earth wouldn't be possible if it weren't for the moon, however none of your links back that up. Was the moon an important factor in the evolution of life? Of course it was, something that size near the planet would have an effect on just about everything. However that does not prove it to be a vital component for abiogenesis.
Ah, I see your issue.
My bad.
I was discussing this in the same context as with gmilam and NF in relation to the Drake Equation.
it then took 4 billion years to evolve into an intelligent species that could communicate (which is what we are discussing)
I'm not saying that the moon was required for abiogenesis, that life itself couldn't have formed on the earth without the moon being here, but that it took the stabilizing effect of the moon on our climate and our seasons for life to be able to progress to the advanced level that it has.
ie. without the moon we wouldn't have made it to level of the advanced civilizations as specified in the Drake Equation. Thus no communication with other off planet civilizations.
Turn that around that would imply that other planets in other solar systems without the same stabilizing force of our very large moon, which is quite possibly a very rare occurrence, would not provide a sufficiently stable climate for advanced civilizations to form.
Arthur
Diode-Man
10-31-11, 12:25 AM
Do you think, that amonst the stars, there are other life forms? could aliens have visited Earth? Share your answer and explain!
There is a LOT of alien life in the Universe but none of it has come in contact with our planet.
he moment someone weighs in on liklihood, it has nothing to do with science.
indeed
The concept has been given an axiomatic mathematical derivation in probability theory, which is used widely in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, artificial intelligence/machine learning and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the likeliness of events. Probability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability) is used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.
damn woo woos
There is a LOT of alien life in the Universe but none of it has come in contact with our planet.
how do you know that?
were you around...say...a billion years ago?
Turn that around that would imply that other planets in other solar systems without the same stabilizing force of our very large moon, which is quite possibly a very rare occurrence, would not provide a sufficiently stable climate for advanced civilizations to form.
Arthur
citations please
[QUOTE]ndeed
The concept has been given an axiomatic mathematical derivation in probability theory, which is used widely in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, artificial intelligence/machine learning and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the likeliness of events. Probability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability) is used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.
damn woo woosNotice how in those examples we are talking about situations where we have good control of the various factors involved. When wildly speculating about extraterrestrial life, we are projecting from ONE EXAMPLE - our little planet - and have many, many factors we are like some blindfolded drunk in a bar spinning on his heels and throwing his dart.
You are actually the woo woo in this case, thinking you can apply what works in certain, better controlled situations to ones that are not like it. I'll agree my quote could have been taken as general about probability and science, but I am talking about this kind of situation, where we have no idea what a lot of the numbers are that you toss into the nice neat formulas. We don't know, for example, the range of ways and conditions within intelligent species can arise. So we work from parameters based on ourselves. We don't know how big the universe is. We don't know what the next 50 years of advances in technology in our own civilization will allow us to do (and for all we know we are one of the slow learning species in the universe) let alone the thousands if not millions of years other civilizations may have had.
And then you have the real woo woos here who THINK THEY CAN ELIMINATE THE EXISTENCE OF ALIENS, by talking about their potential behavior and motivations. Oh, if they existed they would.....
LOL. Talk about woo woo.
You guys are guessing. Which is fine. But it has nothing to with science or the probability stuff none of you even claim to be using and would find rather useless on this issue.
I know you think you are on the rational team, Gustav, and I am on the woo woo team, but I think people on the rational team who are in fact rational would be just as skeptical as I am.
And, of course, when the people you call woo woos weigh in on probabilities, on this issue, they are also throwing darts in their friends faces.
its funny how the church of scientism consists of devout and fanatical parishioners that probably never even wrote let alone understand simple math equations
It's funny how you woos always accuse people who refute your claims of "scientism" when all they're doing is helping you. Especially since it's virtually always a baseless claim.
lets eyeball arioch and his pseudoscientific ilk in action...
Similarly, an appendix to the 1968 symposium hearings on UFOs provided a scientific method for assessing the reliability of the perceptions of those who claimed to have seen a UFO. Included as an example of the method's efficacy was the detailed evaluation of a thirty-seven-year-old unmarried white man who reported a large luminous disk hovering over Tucson at 3:00 A.M., November 17, 1967. "The Applied Assessment of Central Nervous System Integrity: A Method for Establishing the Creditability of Eye Witness and Other Observers" provides a thorough medical history and the results of a physical examination, laboratory studies of the man's urine and blood, a neurologic evaluation, a qualitative ophthalmologic examination, and a quantitative neuro-ophthalmologic investigation. It concludes that heavy smoking and the early stages of alcoholism damaged the witness's eyes so as to make his sighting "highly unlikely."
Results from the physical examination alone were said to indicate the probability of misperception. Nonetheless, the witness was subjected to a psychiatric evaluation, too. Although the report acknowledges the man's college education, exemplary record as a bank employee, and sense of responsibility, it finds more significance in the fact that "he was breast fed for nearly two years because his mother couldn't afford to buy store milk"; that he was "more than once called a `mamma's boy' by his peers"; and that his sexual activity was limited to masturbating once a week to the fantasy of removing the "round, plastic, chartreuse nipple covers" from a belly dancer who performed at a local bar. On the basis of these tests, the probability of the man's credibility was estimated at 5 percent, putting him in the "extremely impaired category."
Dr. Sydney Walker, the author of the assessment method, observes that without these tests, the witness might have seemed highly credible because of his respectable bank position, general demeanor, and claim to good health. Thanks to the medical evaluation, however, the witness is discredited as a sexually dysfunctional alcoholic and the sighting is explained as "an acute illusory phenomenon in which his regressed oral yearning for his mother was symbolically represented in the `light.' That the object took the color and shape it did (like the nipple covers) further demonstrates [the witness's] all-pervasive oral fixation."
/chortle
Do you think, that amonst the stars, there are other life forms? could aliens have visited Earth? Share your answer and explain!
There are no "aliens."
There is one existence and one Universe.
Whatever beings exist, exist in this Universe, not outside.
Philosophy trumps empiricism, case closed.
When wildly speculating about extraterrestrial life, we are projecting from ONE EXAMPLE - our little planet - and have many, many factors we are like some blindfolded drunk in a bar spinning on his heels and throwing his dart.
your exaggerations indicate pathology. you must be a devout christian with some sense of biblical uniqueness
there is a method to the "madness"
http://www.theuniverserevealed.com/Habitable_zone.png
When looking for life on other planets, some simplifying assumptions are useful to reduce the size of the task of the astrobiologist. One is to assume that the vast majority of life forms in our galaxy are based on carbon chemistries, as are all life forms on Earth. While it is possible that non-carbon-based life forms exist, carbon is well known for the unusually wide variety of molecules that can be formed around it. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe and the energy required to make or break a bond is just at an appropriate level for building molecules which are not only stable, but also reactive. The fact that carbon atoms bond readily to other carbon atoms allows for the building of arbitrarily long and complex molecules.
The presence of liquid water is a useful assumption, as it is a common molecule and provides an excellent environment for the formation of complicated carbon-based molecules that could eventually lead to the emergence of life. Some researchers posit environments of ammonia, or more likely, water-ammonia mixtures.
A third assumption is to focus on sun-like stars. This comes from the idea of planetary habitability. Very big stars have relatively short lifetimes, meaning that life would not likely have time to evolve on planets orbiting them. Very small stars provide so little heat and warmth that only planets in very close orbits around them would not be frozen solid, and in such close orbits these planets would be tidally "locked" to the star. Without a thick atmosphere, one side of the planet would be perpetually baked and the other perpetually frozen. In 2005, the question was brought back to the attention of the scientific community, as the long lifetimes of red dwarfs could allow some biology on planets with thick atmospheres. This is significant, as red dwarfs are extremely common.
what i see here is a methodology that is consistent with the "goals" of science.
and yes we project since it is actually not unreasonable to do so. why get bogged down in say a silicon based life form (http://nai.nasa.gov/astrobio/feat_questions/silicon_life.cfm) when we do not even have a precedence on which to base this speculation?
Silicon also has the formidable disadvantage of being less abundant in the universe. The birthplace of all heavier elements—older stars—tend to produce far more carbon than silicon. Thus the likelihood of a living system to evolve based on silicon is lower based on the sheer rarity of naturally produced silicon compared to carbon. In fact, astronomical observations of the spectra of various stars and nebulae reveal that organic carbon ring structures (also known as polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAH’s) exist even in the far reaches of space. In a laboratory at NASA Ames Research Center, NAI astrochemist Lou Allamandola simulates the conditions under which it is believed these PAH’s are produced in space. His experiments have yielded a variety of carbon-based, biologically interesting molecules
You guys are guessing. Which is fine. But it has nothing to with science or the probability stuff none of you even claim to be using and would find rather useless on this issue.
hilarious
uranus wobbles. astronomers guess (theorize) neptune and pluto
damn armchair debunkers.
shermer, a psychologist
randi, a magician
pineal, an entrepreneur
arioch, dazed and confused
all self-appointed reps of the grand ole institution of science lecturing academia on how to conduct themselves. frakkin charlatans and media whores.
/sneer
When did I say that I don't think that life exists? Oh that's right, never. Given the shear size of the universe and the common nature of life's important compounds, it's incredibly likely that there is some form of life out there. What I did say was that the shear enormity of the universe also makes it extremely unlikely that, if there is life out there, it is visiting us.
of course
aliens have to originate from the furthest possible points in the universe
/smirk
Aqueous Id
11-13-11, 04:14 PM
I think the question is fundamentally flawed as follows.
When we speculate that there may be life elsewhere, we are finding similarity, in other words, the conditions are similar, for example. That part is fine.
But then when we jump to the sci-fi part, and inject a difference: the aliens do not resemble the common life form, say bacteria or a sponge, they are somehow superior to humans and have conquered the speed of light.
Aliens? No idea. Uber-aliens? probably not.
fiction_is_science
11-13-11, 05:00 PM
I think aliens / other species exist in this world. I find it hard to believe that we are alone in the whole universe. Wouldn't that be the biggest waste of space you have ever seen? Like Aqueous stated, super aliens probably don't exist cause if they did, we'd know by now. Now reason for them to hide from us if they were already superior.
your exaggerations indicate pathology. you must be a devout christian with some sense of biblical uniqueness Bad guess, but I see you are consistent in being a guesser.
there is a method to the "madness"
When looking for life on other planets, some simplifying assumptions are useful to reduce the size of the task of the astrobiologist. One is to assume that the vast majority of life forms in our galaxy are based on carbon chemistries, as are all life forms on Earth. Oh, nice. So you guys have a priori like the theists. Cool.
While it is possible that non-carbon-based life forms exist, carbon is well known for the unusually wide variety of molecules that can be formed around it. LOL. Cute bolded bias confirming precisely what I said. Guesswork based on a sample of one planet. Cool.
Thank you for going into detail and confirming my points.
Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe and the energy required to make or break a bond is just at an appropriate level for building molecules which are not only stable, but also reactive. The fact that carbon atoms bond readily to other carbon atoms allows for the building of arbitrarily long and complex molecules.
The presence of liquid water is a useful assumption, as it is a common molecule and provides an excellent environment for the formation of complicated carbon-based molecules that could eventually lead to the emergence of life. Some researchers posit environments of ammonia, or more likely, water-ammonia mixtures.And it goes on.
A third assumption is to focus on sun-like stars. This comes from the idea of planetary habitability. Very big stars have relatively short lifetimes, meaning that life would not likely have time to evolve on planets orbiting them. Very small stars provide so little heat and warmth that only planets in very close orbits around them would not be frozen solid, and in such close orbits these planets would be tidally "locked" to the star. Without a thick atmosphere, one side of the planet would be perpetually baked and the other perpetually frozen. In 2005, the question was brought back to the attention of the scientific community, as the long lifetimes of red dwarfs could allow some biology on planets with thick atmospheres. This is significant, as red dwarfs are extremely common.
what i see here is a methodology that is consistent with the "goals" of science. Yup, it is a methodology, thank you, consistent with the goals of science, but not the procedures. What we have is speculation based on assumptions, a number not even mentioned in the above. A deduction of liklihood, building from a sample of one.
and yes we project since it is actually not unreasonable to do so. why get bogged down in say a silicon based life form (http://nai.nasa.gov/astrobio/feat_questions/silicon_life.cfm) when we do not even have a precedence on which to base this speculation?Nice shift of burden there. You have been learning from the theists. You are making the assumptions. You are assuming that life must follow something very close to the path and structures ours has.
You have not addressed size of universe issues no how long other civilizations may have had to develop. These affect many of the speculations of your fellow woo woos. Along with their hilarious assumptions about what the alien races would do and be like. A lack of a sample does not prevent them speculating on extrapsychologically.
hilarious
uranus wobbles. astronomers guess (theorize) neptune and plutoUm.. This was actually disingenous. Here we are dealing with a system with relatively few variables and they could see something was affecting the planet. So we are working with Newton's laws, low number of variables, not many forces in play. This has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Working with what seemed to be regular gravitational perturbances they could balance out anomalies in the movements of other observable planets. This has almost nothing in common with a situation where we are dealing with potentially _________(I would be guessing at the number) of variables, in a universe who size we are not sure of, where the potential technologies of other species are assumed (by your fellow woo wooers with no comments by you and also how such species would necessarily act. But I am glad it proved something for you, this picking a relatively simple situation with a very limited set of variables. You really are woo woo. Or you like to fight dirty, like many faith-based believers. Or seriously, were you so stupid as to think I was anti-science. You really are an ass.
damn armchair debunkers.
shermer, a psychologist
randi, a magician
pineal, an entrepreneur
arioch, dazed and confused
all self-appointed reps of the grand ole institution of science lecturing academia on how to conduct themselves.
1) Wow nice straw man! I never told anyone how to conduct themselves. I told people what I think they are doing, guessing. 2) you aren't academia. Your just some guy. And given the outer planets example, which for some reason you thought was relevent, you are a) clearly not a working scientist of any kind b) not very clear about either epistemology or the methodology of science. Talk about apples and bicycles.
Seriously Gustav. You are coming off like a fundamentalist and are ad homming me, for some reason.
And gosh, no, I don't think you should be banned for it, I'd prefer to ad hom back.
But now I will put you on ignore.
Oh, nice. So you guys have a priori like the theists. Cool.
sure. deductions/inferences/assumptions are all part of the methodology of science and in some sciences, astrobiology, astronomy and geology. they figure quite prominently.
does the High Priest of Science, Lord Pineal, disapprove?
LOL. Cute bolded bias confirming precisely what I said. Guesswork based on a sample of one planet. Cool.
/puzzled
we have carbon based life forms here on earth. carbon signatures have been inferred by various methods (http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/154/1/112) to exists all around the known universe. tho we do not know how carbon molecules made the transition to lifeforms, lets run simulations. do trial and error. lets do something other than mindlessly fret about enormities of scale and magnitudes of variables. since this transition actually happened here on earth, it is illogical to think it cannot happen elsewhere
You have not addressed size of universe issues no how long other civilizations may have had to develop
a single fossil would do and the size of the universe is irrelevant especially when some decent contenders have been postulated to exist relatively close by
here is how simple the variables can be....N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL (http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/seti/drake_equation.html)
go on
plug in some figures
The observable universe contains about 3 to 100 × 1022 stars (30 sextillion to a septillion stars), organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.
triple the variables. be conservative as you want to be
you will still get fucked
I told people what I think they are doing, guessing.
all scientists do that. the good ones just put some rigor into that effort and understand it is just part of the process. however i understand where you pseudoscientists come from, if you cannot strike it with a hammer.............
I love when DNA based primates 'think outside the box' when considering the possibilities for self-organizing systems.
'We considered silicon, we covered the bases.'
LOL
Interestingly, a NASA found a life form on earth, that while still carbon based has arsenic instead of phosophorous.
http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life
Note how the NASA people are talking about the implications of this.
Also a nice overview of some of the other possibilities - still working in the organic chem type family - is found here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry
And from the conclusion of
The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems
Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems
Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life
Space Studies Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
Board on Life Sciences
Division on Earth and Life Studies
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
we find the delightful term, summing up a great deal of my argument - terracentricity!!!! bolded below. (this also shows I am hardly lecturing academia, which is a pretty diverse 'thing')
The natural tendency toward terracentricity a requires that we make a conscious effort to broaden our ideas of where life is possible and what forms it might take. The long history of terran chemistry tempts us to become fixated on carbon because terran life is based on carbon. But basic principles of chemistry warn us against terracentricity. It is easy to conceive of chemical reactions that might support life involving noncarbon compounds, occurring in solvents other than water, or involving oxidation-reduction reactions without dioxygen.
And all of this is still within the 'box' of organic systems based on chemicals like DNA, RNA etc. For all we know there are a number of other kinds of self-organizing systems can develop and evolve.
http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/CBSA/smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-animated-015.gif (http://www.smileyvault.com/) Gustav.
I'm not so sure you two are actually in any relevant disagreement with eachother, but you manage to fight anway ...
I'm not so sure you two are actually in any relevant disagreement with eachother, but you manage to fight anway ...Oh, but its fun to fight with Gustav. We fought or really he fought me and I was sneaky weird with him till he started 'laughing'. I mean, what would life be without a good rough and tumble with Gustav.
But I have to pace myself, take breaks.
I think we do disagree though. I am a woo woo.
I am a woo woo.
You are? I didn't know that, and wouldn't think so.
You are? I didn't know that, and wouldn't think so.Oh, OK. Anyway, I am certainly not going to try to demonstrate that Gustav and I disagree here. That would be even funnier than having a disagreement over nothing. And I was wrong to imply that life would not be worth living without having a fight with Gustav. It can be a positive part of life, but one can have a great life without this experience.
Though I would hesitate to say what the probabilities are.:p
And all of this is still within the 'box' of organic systems based on chemicals like DNA, RNA etc. For all we know there are a number of other kinds of self-organizing systems can develop and evolve.
indeed. "guessing" is an entirely respectable and scientific endeavor :p
@Gustav --
of course
aliens have to originate from the furthest possible points in the universe
Who said that? I just said that, given the size of the universe it is more likely that life will appear in other galaxies than it is that they will in ours. If each galaxy is fundamentally the same in both physical laws and composition then each galaxy should have an equal likelihood of producing life. Even if you place the odds of abiogenesis at less than astronomical, it is still almost infinitely more likely that life will appear in other galaxies merely because there are "billions and billions" of them.
Of course, even if you make the best possible assumption that there is other life in our galaxy, it's still almost infinitely unlikely that those species are visiting us due to the physical problems such a trip would entail. Navigation would be a bitch, you can't exactly just push a button and navigate your way half way across a galaxy, what with gravity wells and all of the other dangers out there. Beyond that, unless you're going to postulate that they magically conquered the LS barrier it would take them, at best, decades to get here and centuries to get back(such a mission would be, in effect, a suicide mission), and then they'd also have no way to communicate their findings(or the status of the conquest) with their home.
And if you're going to postulate that they can magically travel faster than light(ignoring all of the difficulties with that, such as the problem of sufficient energy), then you might as well save a step and just say that god teleported them here. In fact, you could save another step and just say that they are god.
As long as we're just pulling this sort of shit out of our asses, then why don't we just say that distance is completely illusory and that we can go anywhere with nothing but the power of our minds to propel us? Or how about that everything is an illusion and that we are gods ourselves inventing the world around us moment by moment?
The Esotericist
11-14-11, 01:57 PM
cross post
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2856096#post2856096
fiction_is_science
11-15-11, 03:26 AM
Sometimes I wonder why people don't just realize that the Universe is Extremely Huge. There are numerous parts that we have not been able to see yet from here. Let alone travel. Are we alone in this galaxy? Most likely yes. Are we alone in the universe. I feel confident when I say No.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.