|
On March 14 2010 04:07 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2010 04:05 Housemd wrote:
Thing is, scientists can discover all of the life galaxies they are, but they need to find us a way to get there...before time is up
I am a believer in aliens, and i think that they need the same things we need (water, sunlight and all) so this is encouraging
in my opinion science needs to find a way to get us to these "life galaxies" instead of just finding them and publishing stuff about it...which is still interesting You're talking as if the same group of scientists are responsible for finding life and improving transportation. What? The two issues are completely different, and the fact that these scientists found some life-related molecules doesn't mean other scientists aren't trying to develop transportation. EDIT: And as a matter of personal opinion, getting living humans to the closest solar system, let alone a life-sustaining galaxy, seems pretty impossible. Relativistic effects help you on the front of time, but it also makes the entire universe extremely hazardous. EDIT2: Also, science doesn't work like some sort of game where you can click "research intergalactic transportation" and have it up and running in x years. Much of the field, especially the "cutting-edge" is dependent on complete chance: without theoretical knowledge, nothing effective can be engineered. Without observation, testing, and data, no theoretical models can be made. Two hundred years ago, "chemistry" was still glorified alchemy without knowledge of discrete energy states, the existence of electrons, etc etc. What makes you think human knowledge isn't on the complete whims of chance? (sorry, "science needs to find a way to X instead of Y" just really makes me rage, especially when Y involves a lot more actual science than X)
Hey dont get on my back, im thirteen, and dont have a clue about chemistry, just stating my opinion
|
On March 14 2010 06:32 Maenander wrote:@L I believe the methane found in the Mars-atmosphere last year is a strong indication that methane is not the best indicator for life on a planet, although many Mars-enthusiasts might disagree 
Well, that assumes that there's no life on mars. Given the recent discovery of shallow water deposits on the moon its quite possible that the methane content is created by subsoil organisms.
So you can't really rule it out just yet.
|
sweet, now we just gotta wait a billion years until these life enabling molecules evolve into sentient beings.
|
The universe is infinitely large.
The chance for life to develop is extremely small.
Only seems logical that there is life somewhere else. I doubt we will ever come into contact with it without some kind of warp travel or teleportation, which might take longer than the life of our sun to discover, or maybe we will have it in a couple hundred years... who knows (I highly doubt it).
|
potentially life-building molecules
keyword here is potential...
every kid got told he had potential as a kid. not everybody turned out great 
|
United States24701 Posts
On March 14 2010 08:22 Housemd wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2010 04:07 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 14 2010 04:05 Housemd wrote:
Thing is, scientists can discover all of the life galaxies they are, but they need to find us a way to get there...before time is up
I am a believer in aliens, and i think that they need the same things we need (water, sunlight and all) so this is encouraging
in my opinion science needs to find a way to get us to these "life galaxies" instead of just finding them and publishing stuff about it...which is still interesting You're talking as if the same group of scientists are responsible for finding life and improving transportation. What? The two issues are completely different, and the fact that these scientists found some life-related molecules doesn't mean other scientists aren't trying to develop transportation. EDIT: And as a matter of personal opinion, getting living humans to the closest solar system, let alone a life-sustaining galaxy, seems pretty impossible. Relativistic effects help you on the front of time, but it also makes the entire universe extremely hazardous. EDIT2: Also, science doesn't work like some sort of game where you can click "research intergalactic transportation" and have it up and running in x years. Much of the field, especially the "cutting-edge" is dependent on complete chance: without theoretical knowledge, nothing effective can be engineered. Without observation, testing, and data, no theoretical models can be made. Two hundred years ago, "chemistry" was still glorified alchemy without knowledge of discrete energy states, the existence of electrons, etc etc. What makes you think human knowledge isn't on the complete whims of chance? (sorry, "science needs to find a way to X instead of Y" just really makes me rage, especially when Y involves a lot more actual science than X) Hey dont get on my back, im thirteen, and dont have a clue about chemistry, just stating my opinion
If you're opinion doesn't make sense, then the fact that you are 13 and don't have a clue about the topic doesn't mean that people who know what they are talking about (such as tuna) aren't going to try to explain to you why your opinion doesn't make sense. Don't hide behind 'OPINION' or anything... I suggest you go back through his post again and try to understand what point he was making even if he could have possibly been a bit more delicate about it.
Besides, even if we can't GET to aliens, just communicating with them would be huge. Imagine sharing 'textbooks' or god knows what else 
|
i have no doubt that there exist various forms of primitive life out there, aka microbes and stuff like that. the question though is if there is intelligent life out there, aka at least like reptiles or mammals on earth...
|
On March 14 2010 03:47 konadora wrote:
But does having all the necessary elements -> life? I'm pretty shitty at chemistry but my thinking is that having the 'materials' there doesn't necessary mean the end products will exist.
those are some of the 'materials'
|
You have to remember that the Orion Nebula is many many light years away. So for all we know life is already there.
|
Methane can be found in many, many places that undoubtedly do not harbor any life as we know it (comets, anyone?). It's the simplest molecule you can form with carbon and hydrogen: its mere presence says nothing about the existence of life.
And yes, the title is wrong.
As for the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, we have three bits of information: The universe is very very large. We have found no life anywhere in the universe, except... there is life on Earth. Conclusion: probability of life is >0, but close to 0. Not sufficient to conclude that there is life elsewhere, or that there isn't life elsewhere.
|
On March 14 2010 08:56 Wr3k wrote:
The universe is infinitely large.
The chance for life to develop is extremely small.
Only seems logical that there is life somewhere else. I doubt we will ever come into contact with it without some kind of warp travel or teleportation, which might take longer than the life of our sun to discover, or maybe we will have it in a couple hundred years... who knows (I highly doubt it).
I assume by infinitely you mean 'large' but finite. Also i dont like the argument "small chance, large sample size, sure thing". I supspect most people have no clue of any concrete scales(neither do i altough i study physics for 5 years now and heard courses on protein physics) and just assume the one balances the other somehow.
|
Hopefully we are alone.
We can know almost definitively that we are the only intelligent life in our galaxy just from the fact that we haven't observed any signs of intelligent extra-terrestrials. We are younger than the average age of planets in the galaxy so if other advanced civilizations had evolved we would be able to detect them. The absence of aliens could be for any number of reasons:
1. Earth-like or otherwise life-sustaining conditions could be rare.
2. It could, for some reason, be very unlikely that life will actually come to exist on potentially life-sustaining planets.
3. It could, for some reason, be very unlikely that basic single-cell life forms will evolve into intelligent life.
4. Every intelligent species in the galaxy that has come before us went extinct before it could become space-faring.
It has to be one of those, and for every one that we rule out, 4 becomes the more likely answer.
If we were to find microbes on Mars then that would pretty much rule out 1 and 2. That means either it's almost impossible for microbes to evolve into intelligent life or there have been many intelligent species before us and they all went extinct before they could colonize space.
Why would we be able to escape the fate of every sentient species before us? If we are not alone, then chances are we will die off before we can colonize space.
|
imagine if an intelligent species evolved elsewhere in the universe. created a game just like starcraft, had the internet just like us, and had a community dedicated to their game just like team liquid. and on the forums of this site, there was a thread about their species' scientists discovering 'life' on a region containing earth there would also have been a post just like lysdexia's in this thread, also concluding that #4 was the most likely option.
|
Stop looking for life on other galaxies goddamned! The Zerg are totally hiding somewhere and you guys totally don't wanna know where that is.
|
On March 14 2010 04:37 L wrote:
1) That 'pull back light' post is hilarious.
2) Scientists have been pretending that finding methane in any atmosphere is a sure sign of life because they don't believe that methane can be produced without being degraded without life.
Once you learn how extrapolation and assumption heavy astrobiology is you kinda get a distaste for the entire thing. That said, as instrumentation gets better and we get more planetary samples for analysis things will shape up considerably.
Where are you getting that methane comment?
I've been reading a lot about Titan recently (methane is ~1.4% of the atmosphere, which makes it a pretty significant component) and geological sources are mostly what are discussed. Biogenic methane is only a 'what if' scenario in that context.
What is your background in astrobiology? What is your background in any science for that matter?
|
On March 14 2010 11:15 nebffa wrote:
imagine if an intelligent species evolved elsewhere in the universe. created a game just like starcraft, had the internet just like us, and had a community dedicated to their game just like team liquid. and on the forums of this site, there was a thread about their species' scientists discovering 'life' on a region containing earth there would also have been a post just like lysdexia's in this thread, also concluding that #4 was the most likely option.
I can accept multiple-life-bearing-universe theory, but the probability of that happening sounds like more on the realm of parallel universe and quantum physics. I mean, it's like that age old argument that million monkeys typing keyboard randomly will one day end up replicating Shakespeare work, disregarding all the logistic difficulties that would obviously follow.
|
On March 14 2010 11:58 Freyr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2010 04:37 L wrote:
1) That 'pull back light' post is hilarious.
2) Scientists have been pretending that finding methane in any atmosphere is a sure sign of life because they don't believe that methane can be produced without being degraded without life.
Once you learn how extrapolation and assumption heavy astrobiology is you kinda get a distaste for the entire thing. That said, as instrumentation gets better and we get more planetary samples for analysis things will shape up considerably. Where are you getting that methane comment?
In an oxidizing atmosphere like that of Mars or Earth methane vanishes pretty quickly, if not continously replenished. Titan's atmosphere on the other hand is reducing, so methane molecules can live like forever. It really depends on the chemistry of the planet.
If you find both methane AND oxygen in a planet's atmosphere, that planet's chemistry is quite strange, because normally those couldn't coexist in an equilibrium. Your best bet might be life. Or maybe not in the case of Mars
|
On March 14 2010 05:46 Slow Motion wrote:
I think we should launch a preemptive nuke. It should reach by the time intelligent multicellular life develops.
So that's how the dinosaurs died...
|
On March 14 2010 12:25 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2010 11:58 Freyr wrote:On March 14 2010 04:37 L wrote:
1) That 'pull back light' post is hilarious.
2) Scientists have been pretending that finding methane in any atmosphere is a sure sign of life because they don't believe that methane can be produced without being degraded without life.
Once you learn how extrapolation and assumption heavy astrobiology is you kinda get a distaste for the entire thing. That said, as instrumentation gets better and we get more planetary samples for analysis things will shape up considerably. Where are you getting that methane comment? In an oxidizing atmosphere like that of Mars or Earth methane vanishes pretty quickly, if not continously replenished. Titan's atmosphere on the other hand is reducing, so methane molecules can live like forever. It really depends on the chemistry of the planet. If you find both methane AND oxygen in a planet's atmosphere, that planet's chemistry is quite strange, because normally those couldn't coexist in an equilibrium. Your best bet might be life. Or maybe not in the case of Mars
I understand that this is the case, but it is irrelevant in the context of the post to which I was responding, which made no attempt to qualify the statement in question.
I haven't seen any claims anywhere that methane is absolutely a sign of biological activity - only speculation that some methane may be biogenic. Speculation, so long as it's qualified, is perfectly acceptable.
Also - as far as organics go methane can exist for quite a long time even in Earth's atmosphere. I don't think anyone has claimed that exobiological activity is the most likely source of methane on any body in our solar system.
|
even thinking about life in another galaxy makes my head explode
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
