If they did exist and were capable of travelling large distances I doubt they would even be interested in this planet anyway. Even then this planet might not even support the other types of life that could have evolved on other planets, giving them another reason not to come here.
They probably do exist because it would kind of be unlikely for only one planet to ever evolve life.
There's a really staggeringly huge number of planets out there, so there's probably life on a few of them.
The problem is that it seems quite unlikely we'll ever get there, or that any other race would have developed the tech to leave their planet and come here. Suns are really, really far apart.
sebster wrote:There's a really staggeringly huge number of planets out there, so there's probably life on a few of them.
The problem is that it seems quite unlikely we'll ever get there, or that any other race would have developed the tech to leave their planet and come here. Suns are really, really far apart.
That's very true, so IF THERES INTELLIGENT LIFE OUT THERE, we'd either be stone-age or future science to them, not on their level...
I believe that it's almost impossible for aliens to NOT exist, given the enormous amount of stars in the universe, and by that, the incredible amount of planets that must be orbiting said stars. As of now, we estimate the number of stars in the Milky Way alone to be in the number of 200-400 billion - if there were planets capable of supporting life around even 5% of those stars, that would mean that there would be 20,000,000 planets that could sustain life. And that's only in the Milky Way - the Andromeda Galaxy has up to 1 trillion stars, for example. With these kinds of numbers, there's very little chance that we are the only planet with life in the universe.
However, it's a sight more complicated when talking about aliens that would have the ability to visit our planet - it would take many thousands of years at least to even create a spaceship capable of traveling to another planet, let alone another solar system (we ourselves have only barely touched the Moon, which is much, much closer than Mars, the next closest semi-habitable planet); as it stands, it would take them many years to even reach Earth, and many more to return. While nowhere near impossible, it is a lot harder to accept than the simple existence of alien life - it took our planet over a billion years to even create life (if indeed it was created on-planet and not via impacts with comets and the like), and an additional 3.8 billion years to come up with a species that could venture into space, however limited in a fashion. Add in the hurdles in overcoming stellar and interstellar hazards (such as radiation), the power requirements in order to reach a sufficient enough speed to travel at a reasonable pace to another solar system (considering that traveling at the speed of light, the nearest neighboring solar system would take 4 years to get to, the power requirements would be astoundingly high), and the simple fact of why they would want to visit the Earth in particular anyway, and you have a much more difficult line of reasoning to face when discussing advanced alien life.
It is still possible, however. I personally believe that there's plenty of life out there in the stars, and that on average it'll range from very simple, early life-forms to ones that are only slightly more advanced then ourselves at this time.
/end soapbox speech
In case you couldn't tell, this topic interests me greatly.
So yeah, it's highly unlikely that were the only intelligent species in the universe and it's more than ARROGANT when we think of our planet as the only life supporting planet in the universe. like discovader pointed out there is an nearly endless number of planets ou there and we've only visited 4 of them iirc(mars, jupiter, venus and pluto, correct me if im wrong)
DiscoVader wrote:However, it's a sight more complicated when talking about aliens that would have the ability to visit our planet - it would take many thousands of years at least to even create a spaceship capable of traveling to another planet, let alone another solar system (we ourselves have only barely touched the Moon, which is much, much closer than Mars, the next closest semi-habitable planet); as it stands, it would take them many years to even reach Earth, and many more to return. While nowhere near impossible, it is a lot harder to accept than the simple existence of alien life - it took our planet over a billion years to even create life (if indeed it was created on-planet and not via impacts with comets and the like), and an additional 3.8 billion years to come up with a species that could venture into space, however limited in a fashion. Add in the hurdles in overcoming stellar and interstellar hazards (such as radiation), the power requirements in order to reach a sufficient enough speed to travel at a reasonable pace to another solar system (considering that traveling at the speed of light, the nearest neighboring solar system would take 4 years to get to, the power requirements would be astoundingly high), and the simple fact of why they would want to visit the Earth in particular anyway, and you have a much more difficult line of reasoning to face when discussing advanced alien life.
that's all true...so they either don't visit us because:
1)they don't ahve the technology needed for such a trip
2)They have visited us but were uninteresting
or my favorite option
3)Leading countries of this planet have had contact with Extra Terrestrial life forms since the end of WW2..there is a website on that specific topic, i'll post it here if i can find it...
sebster wrote:There's a really staggeringly huge number of planets out there, so there's probably life on a few of them.
The problem is that it seems quite unlikely we'll ever get there, or that any other race would have developed the tech to leave their planet and come here. Suns are really, really far apart.
That's very true, so IF THERES INTELLIGENT LIFE OUT THERE, we'd either be stone-age or future science to them, not on their level...
why? the aliens could evolve and advance at the same time as us, hell ther could be an alien having this same discussion millions of lightyears way, while on a board about hammer of war.
sebster wrote:There's a really staggeringly huge number of planets out there, so there's probably life on a few of them.
The problem is that it seems quite unlikely we'll ever get there, or that any other race would have developed the tech to leave their planet and come here. Suns are really, really far apart.
That's very true, so IF THERES INTELLIGENT LIFE OUT THERE, we'd either be stone-age or future science to them, not on their level...
why? the aliens could evolve and advance at the same time as us, hell ther could be an alien having this same discussion millions of lightyears way, while on a board about hammer of war.
You're right the chances are 344,353,758,238,642,657,327,168,250,356,729 to 1 but you're right man!
Ok well take it to the next step and say there is a race or many races of aliens that are advanced enough to have not only solved the problem of faster than light travel but have also conquered dimensionality. Would they be advanced enough to observe us without making contact or letting themselves be known. I would like to believe that many UFO cases are evidence to the existence of alien life. Not evidence enough to be certain of anything, but I’d really really like there to be little green men piloting those things.
youbedead wrote:why? the aliens could evolve and advance at the same time as us, hell ther could be an alien having this same discussion millions of lightyears way, while on a board about hammer of war.
I think it's more likely that the alien is complaining about how Workshop of Games is always releasing new stuff for Marines of Space, and hasn't done anything for Elves of Darkness since Clinton of Bill was in office.
I will go ahead and be the anti-hero for this thread. Me thinks, that with life existing on this planet being more of an anomaly than Fateweaver and Shuma agreeing on the merits of French Canada, I am a bit of a skeptic when it comes to life existing on other planets. The chances that life developed, lets not bring God into this as I don't think that it would remain civil, on this hunk of rock is something like 1 in 10 to the 32nd power. That number was created by my friend's father, and yes he is literally a rocket scientist and thinks of these types of statistics for fun. But just to prove that I am no negative nancy, I will keep an open mind that starburst did in fact find some sort of ET life.
JEB_Stuart wrote:The chances that life developed, lets not bring God into this as I don't think that it would remain civil, on this hunk of rock is something like 1 in 10 to the 32nd power.
This hunk of rock as in a planet with oxygen, water, and a benign climate? Or this hunk of rock as in a random amalgamation of debris left over from the formation of the sun?
Ultimately, we don't know how common life is for three reasons: the the speed of light isn't high enough, we have no confirmed evidence of extraterrestrial life, and there is no clear point from which probability can be calculated.
All we know is that life exists, and that it can form under the conditions present on Earth. The best possible estimate we can generate is derived from the probability that any given planet might foster an environment comparable to our own. Now, the math isn't really all that hard, but it is incredibly tedious, and even more contentious; factoring in variables ranging from solar intensity, to planetary position in terms of AU, while also controlling for (perhaps unjustly) the possibility of complex life forming under conditions of reasonable variance. There's also the bit about unforeseen events, such as planetary impacts.
I think the possibility of life existing somewhere else in the universe is quite high. We are unlikely ever to find it for a few reasons:
The vast distances involved: Seeing as our methods of detection are limited by the speed of light, the chances of spotting something within the lifespan of the human race is going to be vanishingly small.
What we're actually searching for: We are currently looking for things that follow our definition of life - Carbon based and communicating via various electromagnetic methods. Is it not possible, indeed likely, that life elsewhere in the universe has evolved by a wildly different set of parameters? Maybe a consciousness spread over a nebula cloud that communicates by manipulating local gravity fields?
Dunno if this sounds too far-fetched to everyone else, but it makes a kinda sense to me
JEB_Stuart wrote:The chances that life developed, lets not bring God into this as I don't think that it would remain civil, on this hunk of rock is something like 1 in 10 to the 32nd power.
This hunk of rock as in a planet with oxygen, water, and a benign climate? Or this hunk of rock as in a random amalgamation of debris left over from the formation of the sun?
Ultimately, we don't know how common life is for three reasons: the the speed of light isn't high enough, we have no confirmed evidence of extraterrestrial life, and there is no clear point from which probability can be calculated.
All we know is that life exists, and that it can form under the conditions present on Earth. The best possible estimate we can generate is derived from the probability that any given planet might foster an environment comparable to our own. Now, the math isn't really all that hard, but it is incredibly tedious, and even more contentious; factoring in variables ranging from solar intensity, to planetary position in terms of AU, while also controlling for (perhaps unjustly) the possibility of complex life forming under conditions of reasonable variance. There's also the bit about unforeseen events, such as planetary impacts.
Yes, what Dogma said (although he said it much more coherently than I could have)
Except for one point: Doesn't Bode's Law account for solar intensity and planetary position? It has been a while and it was not my main area of study so I'm certainly not up on it but I thought that was a fairly solid hypothesis (if based only on our observations of our own Solar System).
[EDIT] Strike that! I just looked up Titius-Bodes law and I am CLEARLY thinking about something else. I am wrong. I remember it having to do with a zone of development or something because Venus is too hot and Mars is too cold but Earth is just right, yadda yadda yadda or something along those lines.
Never mind my half-assed attempt at Astronomy (I did say it has been a while).
And yes, I believe in alien life just not sure whether they could actually visit us or not.
I went to see the 4th kind on sunday thinking hmm...maybe this docu-movie will help me decide what i think about all this. I now think that, alaska is scary and i'm still undecided.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I will go ahead and be the anti-hero for this thread. Me thinks, that with life existing on this planet being more of an anomaly than Fateweaver and Shuma agreeing on the merits of French Canada, I am a bit of a skeptic when it comes to life existing on other planets. The chances that life developed, lets not bring God into this as I don't think that it would remain civil, on this hunk of rock is something like 1 in 10 to the 32nd power. That number was created by my friend's father, and yes he is literally a rocket scientist and thinks of these types of statistics for fun. But just to prove that I am no negative nancy, I will keep an open mind that starburst did in fact find some sort of ET life.
That commercial makes me question Intelligent Life on this planet. Let alone others.
I think this is a fascinating subject. The planet Earth is an amazing place, ideally suited for life as we know it. I can't say for certain that God hasn't placed life on other planets, and in fact we really can't know the answer to this, at our present state of knowledge. The Bible is certainly silent on the issue.
As to the "life on mars" thing. They never claimed to actually find life, but claimed that they "MAY" have found signatures or that it "MIGHT" be signs of life or that it is "POSSIBLE" biological activity. It's amaziing how MAY,MIGHT, and POSSIBLE gets turned into "they found life on Mars".
GG
ps. hey look I was able to post before a thread got locked..yoohoo
Personally, I dunno how life existing elsewhere in the universe is even relevant to us, given that we'll likely never meet or communicate with it.
If you ask me, whatever space program money we spend should be 100% devoted to asteroid detection and defense. I mean, we know the mess asteroids and such have created in the past. Why not focus on the survival of our species rather than stuff like microbes or plate tectonics on Mars? Who cares if there's water on the Moon? We're not prepared to move a real population there right now, so it's not info we need right now.
NASA and co. might spend money more stupidly than any other government agency...and yes, that is saying something.
Possibly the same thing that resulted in methane existing on Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus, Titan, and abiogenically on Earth in small amounts. Accidentally transported bacteria from Earth could also produce it. CO2 + 4(H2) + Ni + Heat = CH4 + 2(H2O) + Ni, so that's one way it can be produced non-biologically.
It's interesting, but saying that we've discovered alien life is a little premature.
Ok, cool. That was a serious question, I wasn't being sarcastic in my last post!
Still, though - it's pretty encouraging evidence, if not conclusive proof by any stretch.
Ah, didn't mean to get snippy. But yeah, I'd say it's something that should be looked into. It might give us a better idea how life first came to Earth (and give us a better idea of the probability of it developing in other places).
So it's me again...some nice ideas and opinions in this thread...
sooo...
who rememberes this?
Scientists and professionals all over the world are still having a debate whether this alien autopsy in the late 40s was a real or a unbelievably good hoax.
The video for this is all over Youtube as well, if you want to have a closer look...
I peronally think its a fake, but you never know...stay tuned, i'll be back soon.
I remember this being proven (or admitted) as a hoax (but who really knows). I know Stan Winston (being primarily a monster FX guy and not so much make-up effects) was the wrong expert to ask as many of those wet tissue effects can be recreated with gelatin, KY and/or Vaseline.
SilverMK2 wrote:With such huge amounts of mass and energy to play with in the universe, the odds of life existing elsewhere is almost a certainty.
I would refute the odds posted above on the chances of life forming, and suggest that they are actually far higher.
That's true...so let's assume that there is life outside of our green(or more like grey if this continues)planet. Lets say planet x in galaxy y has microbes and bacterias on it. THAT IS A FORM OF LIFE. So what do bacterias need to survive? I'm not a scientist but it's certainlt heat, water and food(well, pretty small food but still...)Heat is ever present in the Universe. Every galaxy has stars and planets close enough to them to support life, of this we can be certain, as we live on one of them...So now there's the tricky part...Water. Water consists of two Hydrogen and 2 oxygen atoms(blah,blah, blah)and is therefore a relatively simple atomic bond. So if a planet has a heat source(and as i said earlier, many, many planets do)and hydrogen and oxygen atoms are present on it, water can be formed. Food...i don't exactly know what bacterias eat, but as soon as water exists on a planet, life forms will follow. This is as sure as night follows the day(or the other way around?). So summing up, how many planets have a heat source? Nearly every single one. How many have hydrogen and oxygen in their athmosphere? We don't know(officialy)but we can assume, many planets do. So Lets just say 2 other planets in the universe have all these factors present(allthough many more certainly do)...that means that LIFE EXISTS IN SOME WAY...we're not something special in the Universe, and allthough they might still be amoebes and bacterias, hey we once started as bacterias too...all we need to know now is...are there INTELLIGENT LIFEFORMS OUT THERE?Because, life...exists...
r3n3g8b0y wrote:all we need to know now is...are there INTELLIGENT LIFEFORMS OUT THERE?Because, life...exists...
I am going to say yes. Again, with such a vast number of planets out there, and with the relative ease that life can spring into existance, combined with its ability to survive and adapt (just look at some of the extremophile bacteria around, as well as the creatures living on the bottom of the sea, the sulphur based life forms on deep sea vents, etc).
It was estimated recently that if an intelligent species were to develop at roughly the same pace as human beings, they would only have a strong radio presence in the universe (ie be broadcasting radio waves into space strongly enough to be detected more than a certain distance away) for around 100-200 years (due to increases in tight beam transmissions, use of fibre optics, etc replacing traditional methods of broadcasting), which is not a great deal of time to detect anything in galactic terms.
Plus then you have to factor in that some planets life will have been going on longer than others, development rates, distance away from us, looking in the right place, etc.
So yes, we may never actually detect other sentient life (certainly not until we invent much faster methods of getting from A to B anyway and have a look around the universe first hand), but I am confident in predicting that it is there in relative abundance.
r3n3g8b0y wrote:So if a planet has a heat source(and as i said earlier, many, many planets do)and hydrogen and oxygen atoms are present on it, water can be formed. Food...i don't exactly know what bacterias eat, but as soon as water exists on a planet, life forms will follow. This is as sure as night follows the day(or the other way around?).
Haven't you seen "peanut butter is an atheist's worst nightmare?"
You don't have new life forming whenever water is hot; bacteria (or archaea) aren't just made out of hot water. You need a lot of different factors for life to arise; amino acids have to created, DNA has to come into being, the early life form has to be able to metabolize chemicals dissolved in the water. There's a theory that life originated around underwater vents, which would certainly include heat and water, but would also include some less common sulfuric compounds that early life could have used as a "food" source. Even so, though, this would require the building blocks of life to slowly be created and come together until they form a simple cell. I would be surprised if there weren't places across the galaxy with similar conditions to thermal vents on prehistoric Earth, so from there I suppose it's a matter of how likely it is that the building blocks of life would be created and assembled correctly.
I cant say, i'd like to belive but i keep thinking of an old Calvin and Hobbs comic. where Hobbs tells Calvin: 'the most convincing proff that there is life out there is that it hasnt tried to contact us yet.'
Lord-Loss wrote:Would planets with other life on them look like Earth?
How human would aliens looks? Could intelligent life evolve completey differently then we have?
Im certain aliens wont be green migits with large heads, but what would they look like?
Is it possible for there to be alien species that are similar to species found of earth?
Science Fiction writers have speculated on this for over a century (as have scientists, although purely speculative since we have nothing to go from).
Is it safe to assume that since a humanoid shape is the most successful (intellectually) on our planet it would also be successful on others? Or is this purely pretentiousness?
Can another form be successful if it lacks the ability to make and use tools, like a Dolphin? Or is its current form a byproduct of evolution and its ability to no longer need tools?
Is it presumptuous to assume carbon-based life is the norm simply because it is our norm? Perhaps crystalline-based life is the universal norm?
A.E. Von Vogt (Voyage of the Space Beagle primarily, but some others) has some incredible and mind-blowing (if dated) science-based speculative fiction. There are many other writers and works as well but Voyage of the Space Beagle is directly asking those types of questions. Until we actually find life (intelligent or otherwise) out there, we just won't know.
GoFenris wrote:How about an evolved elephant trunk or even evolved telekinetic abilities?
Or maybe they evolved magic.
Um, any sufficiently advanced technology in the eyes of a lesser advanced race appears to be magic. So yes, you may be correct in the same way dolphins and chimps probably assume we are magical creatures.
There's a very good chance that other forms of life would be beyond our comprehension. We can't think of them in our terms - they might not need thumbs. They might not even use tools. Tools are a human concept.
Think of how different we are to a spider, for example.
GoFenris wrote:Um, any sufficiently advanced technology in the eyes of a lesser advanced race appears to be magic. So yes, you may be correct in the same way dolphins and chimps probably assume we are magical creatures.
You said "evolve telekinesis", not "invent a technological means to move objects that is too advanced for humans to understand, with their mouths".
Not that aliens couldn't have magic, if we're going to go all out with the "completely unknowable" idea. But they could be made out of bananas, and ride around in flying shoes, and be smaller than a flea, and be able to kill you with beams of sadness. That's not really science fiction though, that's just normal fiction. Speculating the KrAzY abilities they could have and handwaving away how they would get them doesn't sound like very much fun to me, just like a lot of saying "you don't know anything about aliens! It could happen!"
Lord-Loss wrote:Would planets with other life on them look like Earth?
How human would aliens looks? Could intelligent life evolve completey differently then we have?
Im certain aliens wont be green migits with large heads, but what would they look like?
Is it possible for there to be alien species that are similar to species found of earth?
Hey guys, thanks for all the thoughts. Nice stuff.
As said in the quoted post, that's a really interesting topic, but before i will talk about it, a shout to orkeosaurus.
That's true, there's more to life than warm water(no gak!)and many factors play a role, but what i was trying to say, was that this is the foundation for all life, and as soon as it exists, other important factor will soon follow....
so anyways, WHAT WOULD aliens look like???
Maybe like this guy here?
probably not but sightings all over the world show that when an alien was found, cought or whatever(real or hoax)that was whatmost of them look like...now, the Universe is a HUGE place, and the chances that another developed and most possibly intelligent life form from galxy x looks so much like us, is kinda unlikely...
If we're talking intelligent species, I would guess it would have dexterous hands or mandibles of some sort; something that allows them to manipulate their environment to such a degree where intelligence is helpful. It would have a fairly large brain compared to its body weight. It's probably more likely to be a carnivore or omnivore than a herbivore, assuming there's a difference on this planet. It's likely to be warm blooded. Probably deals with others of its species socially to a fair degree, but not "hive based". It would probably weigh at least 100lbs adult. Probably would reproduce "sexually", although they may not have set sexes.
This wouldn't need to look anything like a human, though, in fact I think it would pretty unlikely that it would look like a human. Scales, hair, feathers, skin? Number of limbs? Exoskeletal, endoskeletal? Primary senses? Method of communication? No idea.
Orkeosaurus wrote:If we're talking intelligent species, I would guess it would have dexterous hands or mandibles of some sort; something that allows them to manipulate their environment to such a degree where intelligence is helpful. It would have a fairly large brain compared to its body weight. It's probably more likely to be a carnivore or omnivore than a herbivore, assuming there's a difference on this planet. It's likely to be warm blooded. Probably deals with others of its species socially to a fair degree, but not "hive based". It would probably weigh at least 100lbs adult. Probably would reproduce "sexually", although they may not have set sexes.
This wouldn't need to look anything like a human, though, in fact I think it would pretty unlikely that it would look like a human. Scales, hair, feathers, skin? Number of limbs? Exoskeletal, endoskeletal? Primary senses? Method of communication? No idea.
hmm that's some good points
and of course they would adapt to the environment they're living in...not that we do that anymoar lol.
Also, it just came to my mind...what kinda music would they be listening to???lllalright let's stay focused, man
There are theories of convergent evolution. For example, sharks and whales look kind of similar, despite the fact that they are from different branches of the tree of evolution because they both have to cope with the same environments. They are both simmilar shapes, move in similar ways, etc. All these things are determined by the environment.
But then again there are other, stranger creatures in the ocean (such as rays - another branch of the shark family I believe), which just goes to show that if you give it the chance, life will evolve in any way that gives it an advantage for the environment it is in. At least until it changes (see all the mass extinctions we have had in the past).
youbedead wrote:what if we find a race that is more machine then organism can we still call it living
i don't think we could mate, because AI and metal is different to Brain and muscles, y'know...interesting idea though, a race that is more machine than...well, not machine...
youbedead wrote:what if we find a race that is more machine then organism can we still call it living
i don't think we could mate, because AI and metal is different to Brain and muscles, y'know...interesting idea though, a race that is more machine than...well, not machine...
It is possible that "machines" could be living beings. Silicone based life could concivably look more machine than animal, and may well augment itself with "living" machine parts if it advanced enough, in the same way we could augment ourselves with biological grafts, or machine parts.
Is it possible to construct a device which replicates the human brain, without actually being a human brain?
Long answer: We would need to know more about the human brain and be more narrowly define what it does and how it works etc before we could know.
Short answer: Yes, probably
And I was referring to silicone life that uses silicone rather than carbon as the main building block, rather than "machine life" which is, as we have now, robots, computers etc.
Orkeosaurus wrote:If we're talking intelligent species, I would guess it would have dexterous hands or mandibles of some sort; something that allows them to manipulate their environment to such a degree where intelligence is helpful. It would have a fairly large brain compared to its body weight. It's probably more likely to be a carnivore or omnivore than a herbivore, assuming there's a difference on this planet. It's likely to be warm blooded. Probably deals with others of its species socially to a fair degree, but not "hive based". It would probably weigh at least 100lbs adult. Probably would reproduce "sexually", although they may not have set sexes.
This wouldn't need to look anything like a human, though, in fact I think it would pretty unlikely that it would look like a human. Scales, hair, feathers, skin? Number of limbs? Exoskeletal, endoskeletal? Primary senses? Method of communication? No idea.
hmm that's some good points
and of course they would adapt to the environment they're living in...not that we do that anymoar lol.
Also, it just came to my mind...what kinda music would they be listening to???lllalright let's stay focused, man
Looking human and a humanoid shape is two different things. They may not look human but would they be humanoid?
Again, this assumes life would develop in other places as it developed here. Which, I agree, seems the most logical but only based on similar environmental factors, but I don't think we (humanity) should discount the possibly of radically different development of life. An Example: What about jellyfish? They show no signs of centralized brain (among their lack of other typical parts) yet have been observed to display typical animal like behavior.
And we did adapt to our environment by developing the intellect to create smaller environments which were better suited to us (i.e. houses).
As I am an aspiring Science-Fiction/Fantasy Writer, I love discussing this!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:As far as silicone based life goes:
Is it possible to construct a device which replicates the human brain, without actually being a human brain?
Not yet, as far as I know there are two general lines of development on this. The first is the Big Blue/IBM/PC way of simply building more and more complex computers and the recreation of a human nerve and replicating that over and over until the complexity begins to mimic animal-like behavior (which has already been done on limited levels, I don't know if this has a name). I imagine eventually the two will come together (whether cooperatively or because of necessity) ,then we will be all ruled by machines until the Butlerian Jihad which also causes us to add a new Commandment, "Thou shall not make a machine in the likeness of the human mind." (-Dune)
SilverMK2 wrote:...I was referring to silicone life that uses silicone rather than carbon as the main building block, rather than "machine life" which is, as we have now, robots, computers etc.
Why not? Although it is SO radically different than what we know it is hard to imagine.
gorgon wrote:Personally, I dunno how life existing elsewhere in the universe is even relevant to us, given that we'll likely never meet or communicate with it.
If you ask me, whatever space program money we spend should be 100% devoted to asteroid detection and defense. I mean, we know the mess asteroids and such have created in the past. Why not focus on the survival of our species rather than stuff like microbes or plate tectonics on Mars? Who cares if there's water on the Moon? We're not prepared to move a real population there right now, so it's not info we need right now.
NASA and co. might spend money more stupidly than any other government agency...and yes, that is saying something.
I agree gorgon we should spend money on improving out technology.I don't care about life on mars or do the greys exist(they scare me I can't look at them ).
gorgon wrote:Personally, I dunno how life existing elsewhere in the universe is even relevant to us, given that we'll likely never meet or communicate with it.
If you ask me, whatever space program money we spend should be 100% devoted to asteroid detection and defense. I mean, we know the mess asteroids and such have created in the past. Why not focus on the survival of our species rather than stuff like microbes or plate tectonics on Mars? Who cares if there's water on the Moon? We're not prepared to move a real population there right now, so it's not info we need right now.
NASA and co. might spend money more stupidly than any other government agency...and yes, that is saying something.
I agree gorgon we should spend money on improving out technology.I don't care about life on mars or do the greys exist(they scare me I can't look at them ).
While I agree with most of these statements I feel it also goes against the "spirit" of this thread. We're simply speculating and discussing different life forms and how it may have evolved. Don't be party poopers (no matter how right you may be) I agree, Grays would be scary, I hope I don't get abducted!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:what if we find a race that is more machine then organism can we still call it living
Is someone with a pace-maker still living?
What if a race of beings didn't have our socio-religious hang-ups regarding hard tech (which, by-the-way pace makers and such are early cyborgs)? They became so adept at machines doing and/or replacing so many functions they simply never moved into the realm of genetics. The could slowly replace just about everything on themselves to extend their lives until the only logical conclusion would be to simply implant their nervous systems into a machine chassis. Like the Daleks, Mechanoids or whatever.
reds8n wrote:
Albatross wrote:There's a very good chance that other forms of life would be beyond our comprehension.
..they'd be women you're saying ?
I can't help but re-recommend the book; Voyage of the Space Beagle by A.E. Von Vogt. It is a bit dated (but still in print) but it certainly has its share of weird, non-typical and barely perceivable aliens. If you need more incentive; this is the book Alien (Yes, the Sigourney Weaver/Ridley Scott film) is based from (part of it, anyway).
Tools are a human concept - not to say that other species can't use them, just that the understanding of them as 'tools' comes from us, culturally speaking.
Dogs don't build computers, a cow can't drive a car or hammer a nail into a piece of wood - and those creatures can be found on earth. Imagine how different creatures would be from other planets, other galaxies even.
There are only so many ways you can build a club, a hammer, a saw, a rocket engine, etc, etc.
"Tools", seperate from any cultural underpinnings; so items which are used to perform a function or task which would otherwise be difficult or impossible for the user without the item are universal.
A bird dropping a snail onto a rock is using a tool, even if it has no deeper understanding as to what it is doing other than a learnt understanding that dropping a snail onto a rock = yummy innards. A chimp using a stick to pick out insects from logs etc is using a tool, no matter how unsophisticated and no matter its understanding of what it is actually doing.
Because we use a word to describe something, that does not mean that it somehow cannot be understood by anyone or anything else. Some things are universal, such as energy, mass, the elements, etc. So are some concepts, ideas, and relationships. E=MC^2 is a mathematical tool used to describe the energy contained within a given mass, however, the concept and relationship it describes can be appreciated anything with sufficiently advanced mathematics and insight into the universe.
Hell, compared to some aliens, I am sure that E=MC^2 is the mathematical equivilent of bashing a snail on a rock...
Some things are universal,....So are some concepts, ideas, and relationships.
Prove it. They are only universal between carbon-based life-forms on earth, to the best of our knowledge. And even THAT is debateable.
Fair point but debatable? A rock is a type simple hammer to the bird that uses it whether it labels or entirely understands it as such or not. We, of higher understanding, observe this.
Albatross wrote:
Hell, compared to some aliens, I am sure that E=MC^2 is the mathematical equivilent of bashing a snail on a rock...
Prove it. There is absolutely no foundation to this statement.
I think he was simply speculating as to our potentially insignificant level of scientific development compared to a potentially super-advanced alien race. Our mathematics would be, quaint.
Albatross wrote:
There are only so many ways you can build a club, a hammer, a saw, a rocket engine, etc, etc.
We have absolutely no evidence that any alien life (should it be proven to exist) would understand or even NEED these concepts.
Very true. I think I said a variation of this in an earlier post but we don't know what a universal norm is or if we are it or if their is a 'norm' at all. Do you have any ideas of what other types of life may exist? Extra-dimensional? Intra-dimensional? Microscopic? Pure energy? Etc?
But they could be made out of bananas, and ride around in flying shoes, and be smaller than a flea, and be able to kill you with beams of sadness. That's not really science fiction though, that's just normal fiction. Speculating the KrAzY abilities they could have and handwaving away how they would get them doesn't sound like very much fun to me, just like a lot of saying "you don't know anything about aliens! It could happen!"
Mathmatically speaking, there has to be life on other planets. I dont think "they" come here though. Ive not time for all these conspiracy theorists.
And obvious one to me is, if aliens have the amazing technology to leap across space in crafts, covering millions of miles into the bargain, and they dont want to be seen (because they havent announced their presence) then surely they would have the technoloy to remain hidden right?
ie. They arent going to create a rift in space with some unfathomable technology and then switch off the warp drive, turn off the cloaking device and fly very very slowly over Oxford in a ship covered in blinking illuminous lights.
Its amusing that whenever ive had this topic come up in the pub its always the duty pisshead who swears he has seen one
"I saw one! i...id.... id h..had.. twelve...twelve pints.. and then... there it was!"
GoFenris wrote:Looking human and a humanoid shape is two different things. They may not look human but would they be humanoid?
Well, they certainly could be. Walking upright seems to have done well for us, certainly, as does having four limbs and sensory organs near an elevated brain.
Again, this assumes life would develop in other places as it developed here. Which, I agree, seems the most logical but only based on similar environmental factors, but I don't think we (humanity) should discount the possibly of radically different development of life. An Example: What about jellyfish? They show no signs of centralized brain (among their lack of other typical parts) yet have been observed to display typical animal like behavior.
True, I but as far as we can tell it's not possible for a jellyfish to become particularly intelligent. I think in terms of possible unintelligent aliens you would have a huge spectrum.
And we did adapt to our environment by developing the intellect to create smaller environments which were better suited to us (i.e. houses).
That's a big one. It comes down to the use of tools again; to manipulate your environment to better suit you.
SilverMK2 wrote:...I was referring to silicone life that uses silicone rather than carbon as the main building block, rather than "machine life" which is, as we have now, robots, computers etc.
I'm inclined to think pure silicone based life isn't around. Or at least not very developed. I mean, there's 1000 times as much silicon as there is carbon on Earth, but we still ended up carbon. There are a lot more naturally occuring compounds of carbon too.
I think a more likely possibility would be some sort of hybrid; largely silicone based, but then using carbon based amino acids, and things. Sort of work around the weaknesses that way.
Fair point but debatable? A rock is a type simple hammer to the bird that uses it whether it labels or entirely understands it as such or not. We, of higher understanding, observe this.
A spider has no concept of bashing a snail on a rock - a dolphin has no concept of catching it's prey in a web, hence the concepts are not universal, even on earth. In addition, conceptual and abstract thought is a result of our evolution - we have no reason to think alien life-forms would have evolved in the same way.
Well, they certainly could be. Walking upright seems to have done well for us, certainly, as does having four limbs and sensory organs near an elevated brain.
Flying has worked out fairly well for birds, swimming has worked out fairly well for fish, walking on 6 legs has worked out exceptionally well for insects - there are more of them per square mile than there are humans on earth. But you're right, they COULD walk on 2 legs, though it would largely depend on their home environment.
True, I but as far as we can tell it's not possible for a jellyfish to become particularly intelligent.
On earth.
I'm inclined to think pure silicone based life isn't around. Or at least not very developed. I mean, there's 1000 times as much silicon as there is carbon on Earth, but we still ended up carbon
There are a lot of other contributing factors to life on earth being carbon-based, chance being one of them.
"you don't know anything about aliens! It could happen!"
There's a lot of truth in this statement.
I think he was simply speculating as to our potentially insignificant level of scientific development compared to a potentially super-advanced alien race. Our mathematics would be, quaint.
That goes without saying, but such lines of thinking are indicative of having watched too many science-fiction films. The ultimate truth is that EVERYTHING is speculation, as far as this topic is concerned.
GoFenris wrote:Again, this assumes life would develop in other places as it developed here. Which, I agree, seems the most logical but only based on similar environmental factors, but I don't think we (humanity) should discount the possibly of radically different development of life. An Example: What about jellyfish? They show no signs of centralized brain (among their lack of other typical parts) yet have been observed to display typical animal like behavior.
True, I but as far as we can tell it's not possible for a jellyfish to become particularly intelligent. I think in terms of possible unintelligent aliens you would have a huge spectrum.
What if vertebrates never developed into predators and jellyfish competed with each other so fiercely that a type developed a greater intellect to survive? I know it parallels primates and us but I am only suggesting that jellyfish aren't intelligent because they don't need to be and evolution suggests we are because we needed to be to survive. With that in mind, would they develop centralized brains, limbs or anything else more humanoid? Or would they develop their own kind of 'successful' shape? Of course, again, our perspective of evolution.
How about intelligent design? No, I am not trying to draw religion into this at all. I am merely suggesting some type of advanced "terraforming" in the precursor line of thinking. How about the idea that aliens seeded our planet in the hopes of developing intelligent life (because the planet already existed in a decent bio-zone) or maybe just life in general? Like the Lensmen, we were made (or altered, it has been a few years since I read it) to fight something bigger and more nefarious.
Knowing what we know about science and evolution, it becomes easy to make the logical steps to visualize a seeding would take route and develop into its own life matrix. Even if this assumption it is based from the roots of our own perspective, yet again.
Hell, what if we were an alien slave race and gained our independence thousands of years ago? Maybe all life on Earth developed from microbes trapped on a meteor that traveled from another star, system or even galaxy, whether intentionally or even in some random, astronomically outrageous coincidence?
And everywhere else, unless we're allowing for a hell of a lot of transformation. They still operate under the same biological/chemical/mechanical principles where ever they are (unless we're going to talk about The Warp or something).
There are a lot of other contributing factors to life on earth being carbon-based, chance being one of them.
The huge amount of efficiency being another. Silicon simply doesn't work like carbon. It doesn't form the chains life is made from very well.
There's a lot of truth in this statement.
But very little substance, because you either need to base things off of what you currently know, or speculate without any worrying about logic. The later just puts you into "fantasy" territory; what if there's a city of mole men in the center of the earth? We haven't been there, we don't know it's filled with liquid nickel, etc.
GoFenris wrote:What if vertebrates never developed into predators and jellyfish competed with each other so fiercely that a type developed a greater intellect to survive? I know it parallels primates and us but I am only suggesting that jellyfish aren't intelligent because they don't need to be and evolution suggests we are because we needed to be to survive. With that in mind, would they develop centralized brains, limbs or anything else more humanoid? Or would they develop their own kind of 'successful' shape? Of course, again, our perspective of evolution.
I don't think it's possible for them to develop human-like intelligence without a centralized brain, or comparable system. The real question is "what needs could possibly cause a jellyfish to evolve that sort of brain?" It's not simply a matter of fierce competition, as being a genius doesn't make you a very good jellyfish; what are you going to do with that intelligence? Jellyfish have very little reason to communicate, they have very limited senses, they can't manipulate anything around them, etc. Being more poisonous, or reproducing faster, or glowing, etc, are what makes jellyfish better.
An octopus would probably be a good example of something vaguely "jellyfish like" that has potential to become intelligent. They can manipulate things to a good degree with their tentacles; they have good eyesight; they communicate with each other; they live on the sea floor, where there's stuff to interact with. I don't think octopi are hugely intelligent overall (although they're the smartest invertebrates), so I would guess they still need quite a few changes.
How about intelligent design? No, I am not trying to draw religion into this at all. I am merely suggesting some type of advanced "terraforming" in the precursor line of thinking. How about the idea that aliens seeded our planet in the hopes of developing intelligent life (because the planet already existed in a decent bio-zone) or maybe just life in general? Like the Lensmen, we were made (or altered, it has been a few years since I read it) to fight something bigger and more nefarious.
It would be so fun to learn we're the ultimate super-soldier race in the galaxy.
Knowing what we know about science and evolution, it becomes easy to make the logical steps to visualize a seeding would take route and develop into its own life matrix. Even if this assumption it is based from the roots of our own perspective, yet again.
Hell, what if we were an alien slave race and gained our independence thousands of years ago? Maybe all life on Earth developed from microbes trapped on a meteor that traveled from another star, system or even galaxy, whether intentionally or even in some random, astronomically outrageous coincidence?
The thing about astronomically outrageous coincidences is, we exist, so the only thing that would make our having been created by an astronomically outrageous coincidence less likely is alternative possibilities of creation. If there are none, the astronomically outrageous coincidence must have been it.
mattyrm wrote:There might be some aliens actually on earth, cancel my last.
My mate went out with a girl who looked like Predator with his mask off. I refuse that she could have been a product of evolution.
Lol, but seriously, many people and organizations believe strongly in the fact that Aliens actually live here.
I read this book once, it was called U.F.O. iirc and it was a pretty epic read. Now you can't believe evrything someone tells you, of course, but that book had some really weird infos and evidence...read it if you ever get a chance to!
Something to think about...
-THE PYRAMIDS...leading experts in the buliding and architecure industry say that even TODAY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD THE PYRAMIDS. Yes, ladies and gents, IMPOSSIBLE. Google it and have a bit of a look around...
-THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE...that's were all the planes and ships got lost, many scientists say that is because of special and rare gases in the water in this region that act as "detergent", so anything that swims there, sinks...BUT PLANES DON'T SWIM.......
-THE PYRAMIDS...leading experts in the buliding and architecure industry say that even TODAY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD THE PYRAMIDS. Yes, ladies and gents, IMPOSSIBLE. Google it and have a bit of a look around...
I've only heard that it's economically unfeasible; i.e., no government on earth could get away with wasting that kind of labor on a monument. The Great Wall of China being another project that couldn't realistically be done.
I haven't heard of it being physically impossible, though.
-THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE...that's were all the planes and ships got lost, many scientists say that is because of special and rare gases in the water in this region that act as "detergent", so anything that swims there, sinks...BUT PLANES DON'T SWIM.......
I'll be back soon stay tuned...
I thought the Bermuda triangle mystery was debunked; they don't have a higher rate of missing ships/planes than any other area of sea that has equivalent traffic. I mean, there are tons of ships and planes that go through he Bermuda triangle, you're going to have a lot of accidents simply because of the that scale.
-THE PYRAMIDS...leading experts in the buliding and architecure industry say that even TODAY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD THE PYRAMIDS. Yes, ladies and gents, IMPOSSIBLE. Google it and have a bit of a look around...
I've only heard that it's economically unfeasible; i.e., no government on earth could get away with wasting that kind of labor on a monument. The Great Wall of China being another project that couldn't realistically be done.
I haven't heard of it being physically impossible, though.
-THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE...that's were all the planes and ships got lost, many scientists say that is because of special and rare gases in the water in this region that act as "detergent", so anything that swims there, sinks...BUT PLANES DON'T SWIM.......
I'll be back soon stay tuned...
I thought the Bermuda triangle mystery was debunked; they don't have a higher rate of missing ships/planes than any other area of sea that has equivalent traffic. I mean, there are tons of ships and planes that go through he Bermuda triangle, you're going to have a lot of accidents simply because of the that scale.
Good points, orkeo!
Dammit, i watched all those docos where they explained everythin,but i can't recall the names..
Crablezworth wrote:Ok well take it to the next step and say there is a race or many races of aliens that are advanced enough to have not only solved the problem of faster than light travel but have also conquered dimensionality. Would they be advanced enough to observe us without making contact or letting themselves be known. I would like to believe that many UFO cases are evidence to the existence of alien life. Not evidence enough to be certain of anything, but I’d really really like there to be little green men piloting those things.
it would be pretty easy to observe us as we pump out a whole load of radiowaves (tv,radio,communications)
for the kind of travel required to get here aliens would need either faster than light technology, multi-generational ships (like craftworlds) or suspended animation of crew on an automated navigation system of some sort, i'm open to all three possibilities with the first one being the least likely.
it is also believed in some scientific circles that life (bacteria) may have arrived on earth trapped in comets during the kidergarden years of the planet
AHA! What i mean is, it is possible that ALL LIFE ON EARTH came from a distant world aeons ago...as in Aliens(us) settled on earth...just think about it...
There are also theories that fungus can travel through space on asteroids... so that humans can eat the mushrooms, and speculate about how exactly the mushrooms came through the atmosphere, just to get them to think about that all over again... while eating mushrooms.
It appears that planets are common enough, just hard to detect. it is quite probable that life does exist beyond our solar system. however, the idea that we'll all be one big happy federation as in star trek etc. is exceedingly unlikely, unless FTL travel can be invented, and also be somewhat practical. Just my depressing 0.02$.
r3n3g8b0y wrote:Yeah, exactly like the the Arc...life is weird and wonderful...
I would not doubt the possibility that life came to earth in an extremely primitive form, using the advantages of this planet to propagate. To think that DNA could somehow travel the possible light years to get to us, doesn't really add up for me though.
Also, if another intelligent form of life managed to send, said primitive DNA here to earth; I would really have to wonder why. Perhaps it was just simple enough to require little more than something along the lines of what we do with our long range satellites. Dunno really, maybe some very strange, but advanced being got it into their head to play Johnny Appleseed for some reason. Running around the universe, or just launching 'seed' all over the place... which sounds... yeah... hmmm.
CaptainCommunsism wrote:It appears that planets are common enough, just hard to detect. it is quite probable that life does exist beyond our solar system. however, the idea that we'll all be one big happy federation as in star trek etc. is exceedingly unlikely, unless FTL travel can be invented, and also be somewhat practical. Just my depressing 0.02$.
I suppose if you approach it with expectations it is a bit depressing... for our offspring I guess. Not exactly like I am going to be missing out on spaceships within my life time. If I feel really angry later in life though, I could shake my fist at the people that will probably be living on the Moon in a few decades or so.
DAMN MOON PEOPLE!!!
I would expect something a little less hollywood than Star Trek though. Perhaps Star Wars, but with less lasers, and more phasers... oh, and nukes too. Nukes do a pretty good job of being used in space... just sayin'.
I think I have the answer to both sides of the debate: +++www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html+++
Lets pull this thread in order and join our ideas:
Space is frikkin' huge. There has to be chance that there is at least another planet with similair conditions, and similair history. What happened on the surface is speculation...
Forget all human norms when discussing about aliens. It's like a cat trying to have a decent conversation with a crab about trees...
Alien life is most likely to be carboin-based. It is the most reactive, most stable elemet that forms 3+ bonds essential for complex chemical functionsm like life...
Tools...can be of any form, shape, function or origin...The essential part being that it is an external object to the body, and being used intentionally. Heck, even non-intelligent animals use tools...
Though wildly different, aliens cannot be extravagantly formed. Fish have a naturally optimal form for surviving in water. It ain't gonna be otherwise on any other planet with a large fluid environment. As evolution has shown all forms must be of maximal efficiency, so extravagant forms (one leg, land-tentacles) are not gonna exist>
I'm sure you have much more ideas than poor me alone!
Turbo10k wrote:I think I have the answer to both sides of the debate: +++www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html+++
nice idea, but a lot of speculation and fiction...
Turbo10k wrote:Lets pull this thread in order and join our ideas:
Space is frikkin' huge. There has to be chance that there is at least another planet with similair conditions, and similair history. What happened on the surface is speculation...
certainly true..
Turbo10k wrote:Forget all human norms when discussing about aliens. It's like a cat trying to have a decent conversation with a crab about trees...
Alien life is most likely to be carboin-based. It is the most reactive, most stable elemet that forms 3+ bonds essential for complex chemical functionsm like life...
Tools...can be of any form, shape, function or origin...The essential part being that it is an external object to the body, and being used intentionally. Heck, even non-intelligent animals use tools...
Though wildly different, aliens cannot be extravagantly formed. Fish have a naturally optimal form for surviving in water. It ain't gonna be otherwise on any other planet with a large fluid environment. As evolution has shown all forms must be of maximal efficiency, so extravagant forms (one leg, land-tentacles) are not gonna exist>
I'm sure you have much more ideas than poor me alone!
yeah, so IF the aliens with the huge heads DO EXIST that means they're highly developed...why? Because they are smart(huge brain)and that means they don't have to be big or strong to survive because their technology is highly advanced...and that means they would be the Tau of the "Real Universe"
Turbo10k wrote:so extravagant forms (one leg, land-tentacles) are not gonna exist>
Ummm...
One leg, land tentacle... two headed alien from space?
Life is weird man, I can only begin to imagine how strange stuff can actually get. Look in the ocean first, it will blow your fragile little mind... in such delightful ways.
One idea that sounds pretty freaking awesome, is a sort of jellyfish that floats on gaseous planets. It could ride currents like a hot-air balloon, and it would pull energy from the sun, using a translucent stomach filled with algae like scum. Damn, that sounds so freaking weird.
Turbo10k wrote:so extravagant forms (one leg, land-tentacles) are not gonna exist>
Ummm...
One leg, land tentacle... two headed alien from space?
Life is weird man, I can only begin to imagine how strange stuff can actually get. Look in the ocean first, it will blow your fragile little mind... in such delightful ways.
Mutations are nature's mistakes...no one is perfect, not even nature, and this snake won't survive without help...
r3n3g8b0y wrote:Mutations are nature's mistakes...no one is perfect, not even nature, and this snake won't survive without help...
Do you mean Gods mistakes? Nature does not make mistakes, it just evolves.
There are frogs that can change sexes, how the hell did that come about? It is not like all frogs can just do that. That initial change, just like this 'mutation', allowed those frogs to adapt the their environment accordingly.
I cannot imagine a single adaptation that would not work somewhere, for some reason. Spiders using flowers to trap prey, and drown it? Sure, and why not add a little makeshift scuba tank onto that little bugger. Now he is going to kick ass and take names... hardcore nature status.
I can't remember what the other ones name is right now, but it stays inside flowers, and uses them as traps.
I knew what I was writing. Snakes don't have a leg, they're riding on their scaled bellies...Their legs have devolved into miniature non-functional bones around two thirds down.
That is a one legged (no legged really) land tentacle beast. Pretty strange if you ask me.
Snakes can also swim in the water, so then they could be called one legged, water tentacle beasts.
I also see no reason why a land based animal (perhaps some sort of creature that lives in phases, in different environments; or a creature that lives on both land and in water.) could not have a specific use for tentacles. Heck, on a planet that was humid enough, octopus could probably evolve to live in marshes, both in and out of water.
Life is only limited by what is the most effective way to deal with a specific environment. We see animals on this planet, that can survive in multiple environments; though the extremes of that (extremophiles) usually are pretty limited in how they can evolve. The tube worms you find in underwater vents, are more than likely to just die off when the vent does; practically no way to evolve out of that. Perhaps the ability to go dormant, and act like some sort of barnacle perhaps.
In the right type of environment, giant whales could evolve to feed off of minerals coming out of vents; and something along the lines of the thermophile tube worms, could simply hitch a ride.
One idea that sounds pretty freaking awesome, is a sort of jellyfish that floats on gaseous planets. It could ride currents like a hot-air balloon, and it would pull energy from the sun, using a translucent stomach filled with algae like scum. Damn, that sounds so freaking weird.
Well, I think this creature would run into a few problems. For one thing it needs to remain buoyant; when you're on a planet largely composed of hydrogen, what do you fill yourself with to remain floating? Hotter hydrogen, I guess, but now that's a further drain on energy. You did suggest floating on currents, which would help a lot. Still, a jellyfish has limited ability to move in the water; in a gas, it wouldn't be able to swim, it would need to jet itself around or something, which would probably be a little more difficult. It also needs to be able to perceive where the currents are... make sure that it's at the right height (the difference in pressure on a gas giant is huge), find food if it needs to do so to, reproduce in such a manner that it can be sure at least some of its offspring survives.
Another things that might come up is the availability of sunlight on a gas giant; assuming the gas giant is close to the sun (photosynthesis would never work on something as far away as Jupiter), I would think the jellyfish would have to be close to the surface of the planet to get enough sunlight; but that would put it in the thinnest part of the atmosphere, which would further contribute to the buoyancy problems, especially as I doubt there are any sort of sizable gas currents at that height.
I think life on a gas giant would be pretty damn hard, although your idea is a cool one.
at some day in the distant future there will only be ONE race on this planet...the one race that was strong/smart/powerful/big/whatever enough to survive..that's just how things go and imho that WILL NOT be the humans...we might be powerful/big/and technologically advanced..but we have one major problem...WE ARE DUMB! No other race on thi planet kills each other to such an extent and for no reason, no other race EVEN THINKS ABOUT polluting the environment and heating up our blue planet(No, not even sheep, that's not their fault.. )and no other race is as lazy and distant from nature as we are...money and machines can't outlast nature...
One idea that sounds pretty freaking awesome, is a sort of jellyfish that floats on gaseous planets. It could ride currents like a hot-air balloon, and it would pull energy from the sun, using a translucent stomach filled with algae like scum. Damn, that sounds so freaking weird.
Well, I think this creature would run into a few problems. For one thing it needs to remain buoyant; when you're on a planet largely composed of hydrogen, what do you fill yourself with to remain floating? Hotter hydrogen, I guess, but now that's a further drain on energy.
The action of metabolizing the nutrients from the algae, along with the added assistance of the sun's heat, could stand to keep such a creature in a pretty consistent height. The creature would work in many ways like a jellyfish, just hanging around, letting the environment keep it at a safe height.
You did suggest floating on currents, which would help a lot. Still, a jellyfish has limited ability to move in the water; in a gas, it wouldn't be able to swim, it would need to jet itself around or something, which would probably be a little more difficult. It also needs to be able to perceive where the currents are... make sure that it's at the right height (the difference in pressure on a gas giant is huge), find food if it needs to do so to, reproduce in such a manner that it can be sure at least some of its offspring survives.
I suppose thinking of it as some sort of advanced plant, or some form of fungus, would make a bit more sense.
Another things that might come up is the availability of sunlight on a gas giant; assuming the gas giant is close to the sun (photosynthesis would never work on something as far away as Jupiter), I would think the jellyfish would have to be close to the surface of the planet to get enough sunlight; but that would put it in the thinnest part of the atmosphere, which would further contribute to the buoyancy problems, especially as I doubt there are any sort of sizable gas currents at that height.
Well, if the creature was large enough, it could have an 'anchor' that would hold it in a specific current; while the main 'head/stomach' would be close enough to light to gain energy. Sort of like a piece of floating seaweed, pretty complicated to actually make sense of though.
I think life on a gas giant would be pretty damn hard, although your idea is a cool one.
I actually heard about this specific idea in a program about future animals. I will try and find the name of it, if I remember, I got it from netflix no problem.
Here you go mate. A bit silly overall, but still quite fun. At some point, I am going to start designing creatures, so I can make a book or something out of it. Just like those books from when you were a kid, but with aliens instead.
WE ARE DUMB! No other race on thi planet kills each other to such an extent and for no reason,
People have reasons for killing each other. And how do you know killing each other is detrimental to the survival of the species as a whole?
no other race EVEN THINKS ABOUT polluting the environment
Tell that to the blue-green algae that first introduced oxygen into the atmosphere. (Although I guess they didn't think about their actions, technically...)
and heating up our blue planet(No, not even sheep, that's not their fault.. )
It's been a lot hotter than it is now.
and no other race is as lazy and distant from nature as we are...money and machines can't outlast nature...
I doubt there's any other species on earth that has ever worried about where they will be in a few hundred years. If they even think of the preservation of their species as a concept.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:The action of metabolizing the nutrients from the algae, along with the added assistance of the sun's heat, could stand to keep such a creature in a pretty consistent height. The creature would work in many ways like a jellyfish, just hanging around, letting the environment keep it at a safe height.
The difference is a jellyfish is in a much better fluid; a creature made nearly entirely of water will have a pretty neutral density in water, but it will fall in hydrogen.
I suppose thinking of it as some sort of advanced plant, or some form of fungus, would make a bit more sense.
Well, a fungus is traditionally non-photosynthetic. The problem is that reclassifying it isn't enough to really change the problems it has. Either it moves or it doesn't, and it needs to reproduce and grow in some fashion.
Well, if the creature was large enough, it could have an 'anchor' that would hold it in a specific current; while the main 'head/stomach' would be close enough to light to gain energy. Sort of like a piece of floating seaweed, pretty complicated to actually make sense of though.
I don't think that would work well on a gas giant, though. These planets are huge; their atmosphere is huge. Imagine this seaweed anchored to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, and you still will have covered hardly any distance. Near the bottom, the heat and pressure are probably liable to pulverise any sort of organic material.
I actually heard about this specific idea in a program about future animals. I will try and find the name of it, if I remember, I got it from netflix no problem.
Here you go mate. A bit silly overall, but still quite fun. At some point, I am going to start designing creatures, so I can make a book or something out of it. Just like those books from when you were a kid, but with aliens instead.
That is interesting. You say future animals, though; are we talking about a terrestrial planet for the jellyfish? Because I think that would be more doable than a gas giant. It could be filled with a lighter gas than nitrogen, or perhaps some sort of heat-trapping mechanism...
Wasnt able to read through every post so not sure if someone already said it..
Next year (2010) we will know if "Alians" exist... according to the aztec calander we will be visited by our space friends in 2010... This also means that if they dont show... the calander is wrong and 2012 is not the end of the world... on the other hand what if they do come?
Orkeo wrote:That is interesting. You say future animals, though; are we talking about a terrestrial planet for the jellyfish? Because I think that would be more doable than a gas giant. It could be filled with a lighter gas than nitrogen, or perhaps some sort of heat-trapping mechanism...
I think that would end up making more sense really. Like Jellyfish that evolved to float, out of one body of water to other. Floating migratory jellyfish... what freaking planet are we on? It would be really cool if the jellyfish formed a sort of colony when it was in water, so it would be less likely to randomly fill up with gas and float away. Then seasonally it would separate, and shed it's substructure so the individual jellies could float to the next feeding grounds.
If the gas it produced lasted only a certain amount of time, or it slowly released it, the winds along a shoreline could take it along a relatively accurate trajectory. I am sure that a lot of jellies would get lost, but think about them in the millions or something. That way they could cut the odds a bit, and several of these creatures would form, and reform in different areas of the planet. Maybe one type has slightly smaller jellies, that produce more gas, and are able to travel much farther distances; over mountain passes and what have you.
Maybe some of these jellies adapt to fresh water, by landing randomly in a small lake. Over time they could change size yet again, and adapt their gas producing style, so they could hop around in marsh land or something. Heck, they could even evolve a tiny jet that could be used to lazily navigate through trees and stuff. Not sure how they sense the trees... but oh well, it is still pretty cool.
Buttlerthepug wrote:Wasnt able to read through every post so not sure if someone already said it..
Next year (2010) we will know if "Alians" exist... according to the aztec calander we will be visited by our space friends in 2010... This also means that if they dont show... the calander is wrong and 2012 is not the end of the world... on the other hand what if they do come?
Dude, the mayan calendar actually has dates AFTER 12/21/12...so it can't be the end of the world...
Buttlerthepug wrote:Wasnt able to read through every post so not sure if someone already said it..
Next year (2010) we will know if "Alians" exist... according to the aztec calander we will be visited by our space friends in 2010... This also means that if they dont show... the calander is wrong and 2012 is not the end of the world... on the other hand what if they do come?
Dude, the mayan calendar actually has dates AFTER 12/21/12...so it can't be the end of the world...
Well I personally dont believe it is the end of the world on 12/21/12 but since it has seemed to become such a popular belief I just thought Id bring it up Dont feel much like going into my personal beliefs though lol...
Another thing that I just remembered... Theres 2 videos (they might have just been audio) where they were talking to astronauts, in one of them they said something about there being things up their that will not be hostile, they know your conducting experiments and will leave you alone unless you are hostile. The second one was an astronaut up one the moon and all he said was "theyre here"
Ive just heard of those two things... not sure if either of them are true or not but its something to think about
A gas giant doesn't have to be pure hydrogen...There are gases like methane, helium, nitrogen and such that will allow a hot-hydrogen jellyfish to float easily. Also, it go deeper into the atmosphere, just have a surface area large enough to accommodate its needs. This could lead to a creature with tree-like structure: A floating gas sac making up its central body, a stalk rising up, carrying an immense lily-shaped photosynthetizing leaf, and the bottom part acts as weight to balance it and also house reproductive organs.
Another thing came in mind when someone mentioned a hot giant, near its sun. It would have frikkin' huge convection currents along its equatorial convection cells (google it, even earth has them but on a smaller scale). A jellyfish creature could have a parachute-like structure that unfolds near rising currents, making it climb to cooler, higher layers of the atmosphere. There, it would soak up as much solar energy as possible, making reserves of chemical energy akin to fat or starch. This would weigh it down, and it sinks along with the cooler air down to hotter layers of the atmosphere. There, it dies and releases its seeds. The cycle starts again when the seeds are transported upwards again with their newly made 'parachutes' capturing new hot rising currents...
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Once the polar warp gates completely break down we will all be overrun by chaos anyway.
Bacteria and other single cell organisms will have no problem floating in a gas giant.
Floating is hardly it. They get blown in all directions, but due to their numbers (billions) some will be blown in the right direction, grow and reproduce before being blown in the wrong direction.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Once the polar warp gates completely break down we will all be overrun by chaos anyway.
Bacteria and other single cell organisms will have no problem floating in a gas giant.
Funny thing is, this probably makes the most sense.
Just wait until our drones go to Jupiter, and find a spaceship eating bacteria, that floats around the planet.
Turbo10k wrote:A floating gas sac making up its central body, a stalk rising up, carrying an immense lily-shaped photosynthetizing leaf, and the bottom part acts as weight to balance it and also house reproductive organs.
NASA wrote:The temperature at the top of Jupiter's clouds is about -230 degrees F (-145 degrees C). Measurements made by ground instruments and spacecraft show that Jupiter's temperature increases with depth below the clouds. The temperature reaches 70 degrees F (21 degrees C) -- "room temperature" -- at a level where the atmospheric pressure is about 10 times as great as it is on Earth. Scientists speculate that if Jupiter has any form of life, the life form would reside at this level. Such life would need to be airborne, because there is no solid surface at this location on Jupiter. Scientists have discovered no evidence for life on Jupiter.
I can't imagine a large organism doing very well in that type of environment. Perhaps the upper part of such a creature, would be calcified or something. Apparently the coldest temperature recorded on earth was -128.6 degrees; in which, I am pretty sure you would literally freeze in an instant. Your heart would just stop. I can't imagine life surviving in temperatures almost twice as cold as that.
Orkeo also mentioned that Jupiter would not have sufficient sunlight to power photosynthesis. Another problem with photosynthesis, is the fact that most plants are actually very inefficient at converting energy. Maybe something like a floating cactus could do well; they are pretty adaptable little plants.
NASA wrote:The temperature at the top of Jupiter's clouds is about -230 degrees F (-145 degrees C). Measurements made by ground instruments and spacecraft show that Jupiter's temperature increases with depth below the clouds. The temperature reaches 70 degrees F (21 degrees C) -- "room temperature" -- at a level where the atmospheric pressure is about 10 times as great as it is on Earth. Scientists speculate that if Jupiter has any form of life, the life form would reside at this level. Such life would need to be airborne, because there is no solid surface at this location on Jupiter. Scientists have discovered no evidence for life on Jupiter.
I can't imagine a large organism doing very well in that type of environment. Perhaps the upper part of such a creature, would be calcified or something. Apparently the coldest temperature recorded on earth was -128.6 degrees; in which, I am pretty sure you would literally freeze in an instant. Your heart would just stop. I can't imagine life surviving in temperatures almost twice as cold as that.
We were not talking about our sterile gas giant, but a much more fruitful hot giant, with a non-radioactive composition and trace gases akin to Neptune or Uranus.
Neptune and Uranus are the two coldest planets in the solar system though.
Jupiter sounds like the only planet 'model' that would even begin to support life. Europa is probably the most likely to have some form of advanced life though, even if it isn't a planet. Moons may be where the majority of life is, in the universe; hypothetically of course.
The bottom line when talking about aliens is that there is no data that they exist, it's purely science fiction at the moment. Therefore the sky is the limit on what you can imagine an alien to be. That's why aliens fit so well in science fiction, becuase an alien can go wherever your imagination can take you.
They can be humanlike, for example klingons, Vulcans, Eldar, etc.
Or they can be incredibly weird, for example, the tholians(rock people), Daleks(little people that live in machines), vorlons, etc.
I think the biggest problem with life on gas giants isn't coming up with something that could live on them, but coming up with the stages necessary to reach that point.
What I'm trying to say is that we are currently trying to study a HOT GIANT. This is a large gaseous planet orbiting very close to its star. It's surface temperature would probably be 60°+, so is very likely life could develop on it. Plus, it would have a plentiful supply of sunlight for photosynthesis.
Orkeosaurus, the problem you have raised is quite simple. Amino acids formed by the constant lightning in such a hot gas giant would be formed and join until they form a self-sustaining single-cell organism. This was done in hot vents on Earth, albeit in hot water. Minerals do not dissolve in gases so our hypothetical alien first had to develop a way of filtering particles from the atmosphere efficiently quite early on. Back to evolution. The cells that are blown towards the atmospheric regions with the most favourable conditions for growth, and have a means to stay there, will grow the most and evolve the quickest. Billions of years later, multicellular organisms develop, maybe to specialise into some filtering particles, others photosynthesising, others holding hot gases for floating...This would continue until another group of cells decides the quickest way to grow was to steal nutrients from another group...creating predators. These could be parasites that hack into the aforementioned photosynthesising organism's food reserves, others would be floating harvesters trapping millions of smaller organisms and digesting them whole. Let your imagination run free as they develop defences.
However, I think IMHO that the whole evolutionary process from amino acid to 'creature' would take much longer than on Earth as elements required for growth are much more widely dispersed and less concentrated due to them being carried around by gas instead of dissolved in the universal solvent, water.
Edit: Surface temp is the temperature of the highest layers of gas...It'd be hotter than that below.
Turbo10k wrote:Amino acids formed by the constant lightning in such a hot gas giant would be formed and join until they form a self-sustaining single-cell organism. This was done in hot vents on Earth, albeit in hot water. Minerals do not dissolve in gases so our hypothetical alien first had to develop a way of filtering particles from the atmosphere efficiently quite early on.
That's where I think their main problem arises. The thermal vents in the bottom of the sea have a lot of minerals dissolved in them, and they're a great place for life to begin developing. Not having access to iron makes the iron-sulfur theory unhelpful, and I've only ever heard of the RNA stuff working in water or clay.
Once the first parts begin working I can see how we could get our jellyfish to develop, if our planet is close to the sun, and made out of some useful gasses.
(Intelligent life on this planet is going to be a no go though, I would think, with the lack of manipulable material around, and the probable instability of the creatures on the gas giant's lives.)
I am pretty sure that a giant storm, filled with static electricity, could manage to develop life at some point. Just because thermal vents create a hospitable environment for the introduction of life, doesn't mean that a 'cloud environment' could not provide just enough stimulation to promote life.
The limitations of life surviving in a place like Jupiter are pretty obvious. No space Pterodactyls or anything like that. If there was another planet (which there surely is) similar to Jupiter, but slightly smaller, and less noxious; the possibility seems quite concrete. At any rate, I do agree entirely that any form of life in this environment, stands little to no chance of actually attaining self awareness.
The thought of a life-form that could migrate between planets (thus forming the need for at least some intelligence) is pretty appealing, but ridiculously impractical in the same suit. Space squid? I dunno about that one... I can imagine something that could migrate on asteroids in some fashion though. Hyper-hibernation, or something along those lines.
Does anyone know what the lowest temperature DNA can maintain integrity is? After a certain point, won't it just become useless? Surely if cold would not destroy it, radiation from sun's would.
Yeha well, scientists today can pretty much do anything and with enough resources and time they'd be able to make gas planets liveable for humans...i dont know how but hey 200 years ago people didn't believe in the fact that fever could be treated so you would'nt die from it, sooo...
Turbo10k wrote:Amino acids formed by the constant lightning in such a hot gas giant would be formed and join until they form a self-sustaining single-cell organism. This was done in hot vents on Earth, albeit in hot water. Minerals do not dissolve in gases so our hypothetical alien first had to develop a way of filtering particles from the atmosphere efficiently quite early on.
That's where I think their main problem arises. The thermal vents in the bottom of the sea have a lot of minerals dissolved in them, and they're a great place for life to begin developing. Not having access to iron makes the iron-sulfur theory unhelpful, and I've only ever heard of the RNA stuff working in water or clay.
Once the first parts begin working I can see how we could get our jellyfish to develop, if our planet is close to the sun, and made out of some useful gasses.
(Intelligent life on this planet is going to be a no go though, I would think, with the lack of manipulable material around, and the probable instability of the creatures on the gas giant's lives.)
Certainly . Intelligence was developed by nature as a way of maximising our species' chances of survival in the face of much faster, more powerful predators, albeit our lack of natural advantages. Thus tools were invented to overcome our shortcomings (anyone new to the thread, look a few pages back). In our hot gas giant environment, our hypothetical aliens would not have access to enough resources to create a structure capable of conscience, nor will it have a need to do so. Filtering particles doesn't need a lot of brainwork...
As for space-faring aliens, it is darn impossible without intelligence. What species would leave a resource-rich environment which it has perfectly adapted to (it is still living as far as our thought experiment goes, not extinct) and leave at the expense of huge a mounts of energy to establish itself in a hostile, radioactive, cold void?!
Only a fully aware organism would have the drive to do so, and only through artificial means. Nature ain't gonna adapt to space on its own now, is it?
In other words, no space dolphins bro. (By the way, the most suitable form for a space-faring organic species is a sphere jam-packed with food and oxygen reserves and with no pressurised volumes, covered in insulating layers of skin)
The most suitable space faring organic species might actually make use of solar winds to travel (as well as to gain nutrients), so although as you suggest the main body would be best served by a protected sphere, the use of large solar sails or fins could serve it well.
The development of inteligence is an interesting topic. There are plenty of things on land to stimulate its development above the instinctual level demonstarted in many animals, yet most of the "top thinkers" appear to have stopped more or less at the same level as cats and dogs (I think their IQ is measured somewhere around 50-70ish? I could be wrong as I am remembering research from quite a long time ago).
The animals that we understand to be most inteligent are mostly members of the same family branch (hello primates!), elephants and dolphins. All these creatures are mammals (which is interesting), and all but one group of them developed mostly on the land (though dolphins are thought to have started off on the land with the other mammals - after their sea based existance along with every other species).
How much of their inteligence is down to having spent time on land, and how much is through other factors? Is a suitably busy environment and the ability to use tools (ie the biological apendages capable of manipulating things sufficiently dextrously - hands, trunks, etc) required? Dolphins only really have their mouths, yet they can be trained to perform complex operations. Dogs again can only really use their mouths but they can also be taught complex tasks. Both live in very different environments, but both can demonstrate simmilar levels of inteligence.
So I guess my point is that there is no way we can know at the moment what the "best" ingredients for the formation of inteligence are, as there are species which break the trends all over the place.
Octopi can be very smart, and they are essentially just some squishy stuff in a bag.
Who is to say that "floaters" in gas giants can't be inteligent, or their environment will prevent it? We can't know, and even the hardest odds can be beaten given enough goes. And as we have said in this thread many times, the universe certainly rolls enough dice to get those odds at least once.
sebster wrote:There's a really staggeringly huge number of planets out there, so there's probably life on a few of them.
The problem is that it seems quite unlikely we'll ever get there, or that any other race would have developed the tech to leave their planet and come here. Suns are really, really far apart.
That's very true, so IF THERES INTELLIGENT LIFE OUT THERE, we'd either be stone-age or future science to them, not on their level...
why? the aliens could evolve and advance at the same time as us, hell ther could be an alien having this same discussion millions of lightyears way, while on a board about hammer of war.
You're right the chances are 344,353,758,238,642,657,327,168,250,356,729 to 1 but you're right man!
In an infinite universe thias must happen quite a lot then.
Turbo10k wrote: Amino acids formed by the constant lightning in such a hot gas giant would be formed and join until they form a self-sustaining single-cell organism. This was done in hot vents on Earth, albeit in hot water.
Just so you know, this is pure speculation, and has never been proven by science.
1) It is extremely difficult to create information and knowledge before life exists.
2) Excessive investigator interference is required to make biological subunits polymerize.
3) The prebiotic synthesis of the subunits required for DNA and RNA (especially ribose and cytosine) presents some very serious challenges.
4) It is unlikely that any single chemical can possess the required knowledge to replicate, because it must not only know how to replicate, but it must also know how to use an energy source to drive its own replication.
5) Any favorable environment for chemical evolution would have been highly localized to a small puddle.
6) Because of the localized nature of the soup and the low concentration of biological precursors, any robust self replicating system (i.e. Life) would need the ability to synthesize many of the chemicals required for self replication. Any self replicating system lacking this capability would not be able to survive much less replicate.
1) It is extremely difficult to create information and knowledge before life exists.
2) Excessive investigator interference is required to make biological subunits polymerize.
3) The prebiotic synthesis of the subunits required for DNA and RNA (especially ribose and cytosine) presents some very serious challenges.
4) It is unlikely that any single chemical can possess the required knowledge to replicate, because it must not only know how to replicate, but it must also know how to use an energy source to drive its own replication.
5) Any favorable environment for chemical evolution would have been highly localized to a small puddle.
6) Because of the localized nature of the soup and the low concentration of biological precursors, any robust self replicating system (i.e. Life) would need the ability to synthesize many of the chemicals required for self replication. Any self replicating system lacking this capability would not be able to survive much less replicate.
This is all you have to say mate. Not offensive, just very concise, and to the point.
http://theory-of-evolution.net/introduction/intelligent-design-creationism-evolution.php wrote:Creationism is a broad term that can mean many different things.
This part kind of bugged me though.
Any observation that evolution does not explain is simply ignored. This places the theory of evolution on a pedestal. The theory cannot be disproved because science has already made the assumption that it is true. Furthermore, this assumption also explains why scientists are in no hurry to apply Darwin’s proposed test to evolution. Most scientists simply do not see the need to prove that a complex organ can form through a series of numerous, slight, continuous modifications. They have already assumed that evolution explains the origin of complex organs. Why test something that must be true?
I really don't even understand what kind of alternative this would recommend besides using creationism, to automatically to fill the 'gaps'. Life is full of unknowns, and so far, science has done an awfully good job at shining some light on a lot of subjects. The idea that because you cannot explain one thing, so you cannot be solidly 'trusted' to explain another with time, is just silly. We are not talking about God directly, at any rate, we would merely be talking about how life started.
Concluding that God 'must' be an alternative, is just as zealous as concluding that Science is the 'only answer', to all questions.
SilverMK2 wrote:Your source is quite out of date. The most recent "paper" it quotes is from 1975...
Your source is quite out of date. The most recent "paper" it quotes is from 1975...
I saw that as well, but it doesn't change the issue that this primordial soup stuff was theorized and lab tested(not proven) in the 50's.
The only reason why I brought it up is that it directly relates to some of the discussion of, if and how alien life "evolved" on other planets. If it hasn't even been proven here on earth, we should be keeping this in mind when we speculate about other planets.
GG
edit. I have seen more recent stuff than 1975, but that link was the most convenient. I would be happy to grab more current stuff if you require it. :-)
also edited for horrendous typos
Your source is quite out of date. The most recent "paper" it quotes is from 1975...
I saw that as well, but it doesn't change the issue that this primordial soup stuff was theorized and lab tested(not proven) in the 50's.
The only reason why I brought it up is that it directly relates to some of the discussion of, if and how alien life "evolved" on other planets. If it hasn't even been proven here on earth, we should be keeping this in mind when we speculate about other planets.
GG
edit. I have seen more recent stuff than 1975, but that link was the most convenient. I would be happy to grab more current stuff if you require it. :-)
also edited for horrendous typos
Actually... if you look closely the text that I pasted wasn't, from the 1975 stuff, but from the "summary". The book that this summary references (Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design) was published in 2005. Your post implies that that entire summary I quoted was unreliable due to a few other references on the page dating to 1975.
Turbo10k wrote:What I'm trying to say is that we are currently trying to study a HOT GIANT. This is a large gaseous planet orbiting very close to its star. It's surface temperature would probably be 60°+, so is very likely life could develop on it. Plus, it would have a plentiful supply of sunlight for photosynthesis.
Hot giants are uninhabitable, as they orbit within .05 AU of their parents star. Its also worth remembering that the higher the temperature of a gas giant, the lower its overall density. Low density is obviously problematic for any floating life.
You're postulating a kind of warm giant, which would exist at about 1-2 AU.
Turbo10k wrote:
Amino acids formed by the constant lightning in such a hot gas giant would be formed and join until they form a self-sustaining single-cell organism.
Huh? Amino acids don't magically form when certain elements are exposed to colossal amounts of heat, and electrical current. They also don't float in gaseous environments. Even if they were blown around by prevailing winds, they would still sink through the atmosphere to be eventually consumed by high temperatures (Boyle's Law). This is doubly true of any such acids that form into protein chains.
Turbo10k wrote:
Surface temp is the temperature of the highest layers of gas...It'd be hotter than that below.
That's not true. Again, Boyle's law.
Turbo10k wrote:Intelligence was developed by nature as a way of maximising our species' chances of survival in the face of much faster, more powerful predators, albeit our lack of natural advantages.
That's not how evolution works. Nature isn't a conscious force which sits around and decides to hand out competitive advantages. The best hypothesis that I've seen for the development of human intelligence has to do with the way high protein diets permit the formation of larger amounts of grey matter. This enhances the cognitive abilities of all creatures possessed of such a diet, and over time allows for those surviving members of the given species to be selected in accordance with their intellectual capacity. Though it bears mention that the smartest do not necessarily produce more offspring, as our species is not thought to have significantly increased its intelligence since its inception (where intelligence is simply raw computational power).
I think your missing his point. It looks to me that he is theorizing how life "could have" evolved on a Hot Gas giant. I think your trying to place earth based scientific constraints on extra terrestrial evolutionary concepts. Since we don't have any knowledge of extra terrestrial beings, how can we begin to place terrestrial constraints on a hypothetical construct?
I think your missing his point. It looks to me that he is theorizing how life "could have" evolved on a Hot Gas giant. I think your trying to place earth based scientific constraints on extra terrestrial evolutionary concepts. Since we don't have any knowledge of extra terrestrial beings, how can we begin to place terrestrial constraints on a hypothetical construct?
GG
Except what he's describing could not happen. Physical laws are consistent throughout the universe. Whether an amino acid exists on a hot gas giant, or on Earth is irrelevant, as it will still be an amino acid and respond to things like heat accordingly. If it doesn't, then it isn't an amino acid, and therefore cannot be discussed as such.
dogma wrote:Except what he's describing could not happen. Physical laws are consistent throughout the universe. Whether an amino acid exists on a hot gas giant, or on Earth is irrelevant, as it will still be an amino acid and respond to things like heat accordingly. If it doesn't, then it isn't an amino acid, and therefore cannot be discussed as such.
More assumptions.
Your assumptions are based on life as we know it on terra. You have no idea if physical laws that we experiance here on earth are consistent throughout the universe. It's certainly a good possibility, but not certain.
In a hypothetical construct, such as that of extraterrestrial life. Why can't the hypothetical amino acid be super resiliant to heat. Similar to what he was saying about the life that exists at the sea floor at the heat vents, where life should not be able to exist.
Your assumptions are based on life as we know it on terra.
Yes, they are. Which is perfectly acceptable because all the points which I critiqued were similarly grounded. As is any such speculation. Even the concept of 'life' is predicated on terrestrial assumptions. We literally cannot escape that limitation. If you're going to deny one concept on that basis, then you have to deny them all on similar grounds; at which point we may as well simply stop the conversation. After all, we cannot discuss life on other worlds, as that's simply a human-centric concept with no necessary relevance off-world.
generalgrog wrote:
You have no idea if physical laws that we experiance here on earth are consistent throughout the universe. It's certainly a good possibility, but not certain.
If the physical laws are not consistent throughout the universe, then we cannot interact with any form of life (or any object at all) which is present within a divergent system. For all intents and purposes, such things do not exist. Indeed, our universe is defined as the space in which known physical laws apply. If the laws do not apply, then the space in question is not a part of the universe.
Speculating in such a fashion is amusing as a flight of fancy, but pretending as though it has any potential grounding in fact is foolish.
generalgrog wrote:
In a hypothetical construct, such as that of extraterrestrial life. Why can't the hypothetical amino acid be super resiliant to heat. Similar to what he was saying about the life that exists at the sea floor at the heat vents, where life should not be able to exist.
All the conditions necessary for life exist in and around hydrothermal vents. Saying that life shouldn't be able to exist there is the result of ignorance with respect to the conditions necessary for life, not some miraculous occurrence of chance conditions.
By comparison, the conditions he's describing on a hypothetical gas giant are divergent by an order of magnitude from anything possible on the ocean floor. Lightning is not comparable to 140 degree water.
As for amino acids. One of the defining characteristics of that category is the nature of the bonds formed in the molecules production. These bonds govern the integrity of the molecule itself. If the bonds are different, then the molecule is different. If the molecule is different, it is not an amino acid. Categories are free floating, amino acids are not amino acids without the existence of the reference. We put things into that category based upon their adherence to the established conventions which define the category, and those conventions are adopted based upon their usefulness with respect to further progress in terms of research, and engineering.
I only proposed the example of a hot giant based on the fact that higher temperatures would be much more favourable to the development of life than on a 'cold' giant like Jupiter or Neptune, in response to a previous post.
Anyway, here goes:
generalgrog wrote:
You have no idea if physical laws that we experiance here on earth are consistent throughout the universe. It's certainly a good possibility, but not certain.
If the physical laws are not consistent throughout the universe, then we cannot interact with any form of life (or any object at all) which is present within a divergent system. For all intents and purposes, such things do not exist. Indeed, our universe is defined as the space in which known physical laws apply. If the laws do not apply, then the space in question is not a part of the universe.
Speculating in such a fashion is amusing as a flight of fancy, but pretending as though it has any potential grounding in fact is foolish.
This is a common problem when we speculate on a subject that today is no more reliable than science fiction. If we ignore one rule, of course we can ignore many more, but that'd open up so many possibilities that this wouldn't be a tyhread but an imagination contest...So, dogma, let's just ignore a little few?
dogma wrote:
All the conditions necessary for life exist in and around hydrothermal vents. Saying that life shouldn't be able to exist there is the result of ignorance with respect to the conditions necessary for life, not some miraculous occurrence of chance conditions.
Correct. That's what happened on Earth. The geothermal vents reunited three essential environmental factors for life to develop:
-A source of energy (Heat here)
-An important mineral concentration
-A solvent or other medium that efficiently carries all these minerals around.
Such a situation allows fast chemical reactions between all sorts of molecules. Amino acids in such a case would have been developed by dissolved oxygen, CO2 and nitrogen reacting together in so many random ways that eventually nature got it right...after 2 billion years of sterility, that is.
In my hot gas giant example, energy would have been no problem. Light penetrates gases much further than in water, and provides a poorer heat sink for sunlight, so the heat would have travelled further. Plus, microscopic particles rubbing each other all over the atmosphere would build up ginormous amounts of static electricity, meaning bogus lightning strikes thousands of kilometers long readily available (See Jupiter's storms). Mineral concentrations, I confess, would have been a slight problem, as they are dispersed in such a gaseous environment, but their sheer mass would have made interactions inevitable. Jupiter has enough minerals, even in non-gaseous stae, to make up our rocky Terra several times over. A solvent...err...none to speak off, but the particles are at least very easily carried around in such winds.
As for amino acids. One of the defining characteristics of that category is the nature of the bonds formed in the molecules production. These bonds govern the integrity of the molecule itself. If the bonds are different, then the molecule is different. If the molecule is different, it is not an amino acid. Categories are free floating, amino acids are not amino acids without the existence of the reference. We put things into that category based upon their adherence to the established conventions which define the category, and those conventions are adopted based upon their usefulness with respect to further progress in terms of research, and engineering.
Yes, you are right again, but I must protest. Amino acids (notice pluriel) is a group of molecules. To qualify for being an amino acid, just pack together carbon atoms, oxygen, hydrogen and at least a single nitrogen atom, and voila! an amino acid. Yeah, yeah, I know that they have to have at least a reactive COO group to react with other molecules, but it doesn't have to be an absolute invariable defenition of an amino acid. Heck, amino acids exist so far only of Terra. Why can't they be differemt, or even based on other atoms ( say chlorine (<--- ) instead of the nitrogen?!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
We do keep finding simple lifeforms living in extremely surprising places, including one which thrives on Sulphuric Acid.
Hell yeah!!
generalgrog wrote:
dogma.
I think your missing his point. It looks to me that he is theorizing how life "could have" evolved on a Hot Gas giant. I think your trying to place earth based scientific constraints on extra terrestrial evolutionary concepts. Since we don't have any knowledge of extra terrestrial beings, how can we begin to place terrestrial constraints on a hypothetical construct?
GG
dogma wrote:
Hmm, we were talking about a hot giant without solid mass, liquid water or any protection against solar radiation except in the deepest layers, where pressures mount to having the Moon on your back...Terrestrial constraints? Unlikely.
Hot giants are uninhabitable, as they orbit within .05 AU of their parents star. Its also worth remembering that the higher the temperature of a gas giant, the lower its overall density. Low density is obviously problematic for any floating life.
You're postulating a kind of warm giant, which would exist at about 1-2 AU.
Even further! At those distances, you'll need a hefty shield from solar radiation. Maybe 3-4 AU to compensate, and our hypothetical microaliens living a few layers deep...The giant's larger surface area would capture enough sunlight to compensate.
Turbo10k wrote:
In my hot gas giant example, energy would have been no problem. Light penetrates gases much further than in water, and provides a poorer heat sink for sunlight, so the heat would have travelled further.
With gas giants the greatest enemy isn't heat from solar radiation, but heat created by increases in pressure due to the sheer amount of gas involved. You essentially need to find a spot deep enough to retain heat energy and shield against harmful radiation, but shallow enough to allow useful radiation in without being too hot/high pressure.
Turbo10k wrote:
Yes, you are right again, but I must protest. Amino acids (notice pluriel) is a group of molecules. To qualify for being an amino acid, just pack together carbon atoms, oxygen, hydrogen and at least a single nitrogen atom, and voila! an amino acid.
But those elements will only bond in a limited number of ways. In this case what we're concerned with is the strength of the molecule as a whole, and so we can focus on the weakest bonds in a standard amino acid: ionic ones. Obviously ionic bonds are a considered to be strong, but if one were to do the math the feasibility of their formation in the tumultuous atmosphere of should be clear. Now, I don't know if that's implausible or not (that's too much math for me to do without getting paid ), but I do think that the molecular wait of any conceivable acid would quickly doom it to a hot forceful death at the heart of a gas giant.
Turbo10k wrote:
Yeah, yeah, I know that they have to have at least a reactive COO group to react with other molecules, but it doesn't have to be an absolute invariable defenition of an amino acid. Heck, amino acids exist so far only of Terra. Why can't they be differemt, or even based on other atoms ( say chlorine (<--- ) instead of the nitrogen?!
Because they wouldn't be amino acids. They could play the role of an amino acid in some hypothetical life form, but they would still be different molecules.
Turbo10k wrote:
Even further! At those distances, you'll need a hefty shield from solar radiation. Maybe 3-4 AU to compensate, and our hypothetical microaliens living a few layers deep...The giant's larger surface area would capture enough sunlight to compensate.
Keep in mind Jupiter is only 4.9-5.5 AU out, and its roughly -150 C at the cloud tops. By the time it gets to about 20 C the atmospheric pressure is 10 times that of Earth.
Solar radiation would be relatively easy to control for by evolutionary process, or atmospheric makeup. The planet's intrinsic magnetic field will take care of the rest.
The higher pressure is not a great problem, after all, most of the life in the ocean happens at a depth where the pressure is between 2 and 10 atm (10-90m depth).
The increased pressure will also mean that you can "float" more easily. Small particulate matter may find that the density of the gases at liveable levels is enough (combined with the local "wind" conditions etc) to enable it to remain suspended within that level (much in the same way that microorganisms in the ocean float around, or even some airbourne creatures).
SilverMK2 wrote:The higher pressure is not a great problem, after all, most of the life in the ocean happens at a depth where the pressure is between 2 and 10 atm (10-90m depth).
The increased pressure will also mean that you can "float" more easily. Small particulate matter may find that the density of the gases at liveable levels is enough (combined with the local "wind" conditions etc) to enable it to remain suspended within that level (much in the same way that microorganisms in the ocean float around, or even some airbourne creatures).
I was thinking about this along the same lines. 10x the gravity, does not really sound like 'all that much', regardless of how excruciatingly painful it would probably be for us.
This link explains a bit. Not sure that it's all that accurate, but it is brief. If this is right, you would merely be going down to an average of 300 feet to achieve that pressure. Not that far down at all, thermal vents are usually quite deep aren't they? I am sure that some naturally rise quite far, due to the growth of the vents though. On average, I would expect most vents to be several miles down, if not further. The pressure at those depths, would literally tear you into pieces...
This has been a cool thread though. This model of a floating life is pretty awesome.
This is a very interesting thread. Glad I wandered down her to check things out.
While I'm no science major, what about the possibility(maybe near certainty) of unknown(at least to us) elements out there that are capable of performing the same role for another form of life, as ours do for us.
Let's face it the universe is a very large place, can we really believe that the elements found on earth, or even in our own solar system are all that are out there?
Wrexasaur wrote:I was thinking about this along the same lines. 10x the gravity, does not really sound like 'all that much', regardless of how excruciatingly painful it would probably be for us.
I think you might mean pressure, rather than gravity. And I have done quite a bit of diving, though I have only gone down to about 30-40m it does get hard to breathe, though I was not using any specialist equipment. You can go quite deep while remaining relatively unprotected, and deeper still if you have the right gear (though this is getting more to the man-sub hard suits, which may as well be submarines).
This link explains a bit. Not sure that it's all that accurate, but it is brief. If this is right, you would merely be going down to an average of 300 feet to achieve that pressure. Not that far down at all, thermal vents are usually quite deep aren't they? I am sure that some naturally rise quite far, due to the growth of the vents though. On average, I would expect most vents to be several miles down, if not further. The pressure at those depths, would literally tear you into pieces...
This has been a cool thread though. This model of a floating life is pretty awesome.
The pressure itself I don't think is too much of a problem, as demonstrated by whales etc which can dive very deep, and also flop about on the surface too. Whales have obviously evolved to be able to cope with it, which is why they can do it. Other deep sea life has also obviously evolved to be able to cope with the pressure (I believe that it can actually explode if brought to the surface too quickly and in a non-pressurised container, much the same way an plane will decompress if it gets a big enough hole in it when it is flying, only with much more of a pressure difference).
I've not read all that much on the subject, I don't even know how much research has been done on it, but there has been talk of adapting humans to the pressures experienced at great depths slowly using liquid breathing systems. Using such things it could be possible to skin dive much deeper than currently possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Alaric wrote:This is a very interesting thread. Glad I wandered down her to check things out.
While I'm no science major, what about the possibility(maybe near certainty) of unknown(at least to us) elements out there that are capable of performing the same role for another form of life, as ours do for us.
Let's face it the universe is a very large place, can we really believe that the elements found on earth, or even in our own solar system are all that are out there?
The problem with "unknown" elements is that they are unknown. As it is, you can extrapolate the periodic table to predict the existance of other elements (as was done back in the day when we had not found most of the elements we know today - the missing ones were predicted using the properties expressed by the ones that had been found).
However, a lot of the elements that remain undiscovered can, as far as we know, only be produced artificially, or can only exist for a fraction of a second before decaying, etc. On the other hand, "super lead" should be far more stable than lead, but as far as I know it has not been discovered or created yet.
There may well be elements outside the current periodic table but we cannot know until we find evidence for their existance.
SilverMK2 wrote:The higher pressure is not a great problem, after all, most of the life in the ocean happens at a depth where the pressure is between 2 and 10 atm (10-90m depth).
The increased pressure will also mean that you can "float" more easily. Small particulate matter may find that the density of the gases at liveable levels is enough (combined with the local "wind" conditions etc) to enable it to remain suspended within that level (much in the same way that microorganisms in the ocean float around, or even some airbourne creatures).
Yep. And at those depths, the temperature is subzero. Temperatures would rise even slower in an extremely undense medium like gas. I know that no space probe has measured the temperature at the depths of Jupiter, but how long did Galileo have to drop for the temperature to rise above 0°C? 50km. For it to reach 23atms and 153°C? 150 kms (and it broke up). So, if bacteria on earth can be snug next to a 400°C smoking underwater volcano at 10 atms, why can't extraterrestrial bacteria who can support higher radiation, unfiltered UVs and ginormous storms not be unable to stand those conditions, dogma?
dogma wrote:
With gas giants the greatest enemy isn't heat from solar radiation, but heat created by increases in pressure due to the sheer amount of gas involved. You essentially need to find a spot deep enough to retain heat energy and shield against harmful radiation, but shallow enough to allow useful radiation in without being too hot/high pressure.
The optimal depth where life will develop?
dogma wrote:
Obviously ionic bonds are a considered to be strong, but if one were to do the math the feasibility of their formation in the tumultuous atmosphere of should be clear. Now, I don't know if that's implausible or not (that's too much math for me to do without getting paid ), but I do think that the molecular wait of any conceivable acid would quickly doom it to a hot forceful death at the heart of a gas giant.
I considered other molecules used as a replacement for the less unstable terrestrial ones. Acidic COO groups and amino acid structures have to be reactive enough to be used by living organisms, yet stable enough not to decompose under stress. In hot giant conditions, they would be too unstable and never be formed. Other, less reactive molecules (yes, not amino acids, but a group which can also be used as "building blocks of life") would be stable enough for life in such conditions.
Keep in mind Jupiter is only 4.9-5.5 AU out, and its roughly -150 C at the cloud tops. By the time it gets to about 20 C the atmospheric pressure is 10 times that of Earth.
Solar radiation would be relatively easy to control for by evolutionary process, or atmospheric makeup. The planet's intrinsic magnetic field will take care of the rest.
Yep . But you're wrong for the solar radiation. It is difficult to deal with. Even after 3 billion years of evolution, UV filtered by 100km of atmosphere and a whole layer of ozone, can still cause cancers, skin diseases and random mutation, even underwater...This will be a even bigger concern for hot gas giant micro-organisms as, well, gas ain't protecting for much at acceptable pressures and temperatures. Our little aliens would have to have a much more robust chemistry (no RNA or DNA equivalents, they are much too complex), less reactive equivalents to our molecules and therefore slower metabolisms and growth rates (which is already limited by resources being hard to capture...).
I KNOW! We can't just let it die(especially because i created it )
seriously though...here's some Alien-Evidence to discuss people...ENJOY!!
bacterias found on a meteroite...get it?BACTERIAS...ON...A...METEROITE!!!
i mean, just think about it...we found bacterias on a boulder from somewhere outside of this planet...
this is one of the most interesting charts i've ever seen..it shows a habitable zone in our galaxy, ie, where the right conditions for life exist..
alright, here's one of the classic sightings...80% of them are hoaxes...another 10-12% are government tests/or similar...but there's still 8% left...
this UFO was sighted in baghdad...an US vehicle???
ABDUCTIONS:
people who got abducted by aliens always report to have seen a bright light, then a plate shaped, hovering vehicle, and the weirdest thing, the TIME passed by hours in a minute..say they saw the light at 10:30 at night and they turned around, saw the ufo landing and the Greys walking out, the next thing is always sitting in their car(for some reason, people in cars are more likely to get a visit of the 3rd kind..)and it felt like only 5 minutes hgad passed by, but their watch said 3:47....
here are some reports, used without permission, no challenge to the copyright/s intended.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reported By: Susan R. - Gold Coast, Australia - April 17, 2005
Subject: Abduction By Aliens - Location: Gold Coast, Australia - Zip Code: 4213 - Time: 1:00 PM - Witnesses: 1 - Object's Shape: "Light" - Number of Objects: 1 - Object emitted beams of light - Object landed - Object hovered
Event Description:
I have always lived and visited the area behind the Gold Coast area. Tallai to be exact.
One night lots of years ago, I used to visit my friend in Tallai. I was only a teenager. We used to have late nights.
This night driving down a country road, I noticed a very bright light behind me, I was feeling a bit under the weather, drinking so forth, and tried to dismiss it. But it became more and more apparent that this was not a normal thing.
The light was very intense behind my car then all of a sudden it was right upon me. Scared, as I was only a teenager, I didn't know what to do and all I thought was this was something really creepy was about to happen. But just like it appeared it was gone again.
I suppose I wanted to put it out of my mind as most people discredit this sort of phenomenon. But then I ended up buying a property on this particular road.
One night, I remember lying in my bed besides my husband and I couldn't move, time was irrelevant and my whole bedroom was alit with this fantastic glow. I kept remembering trying to wake my husband with no avail.
I don't remember after that, except waking to think what had taken place must have happened in a matter of seconds as time had stood still. But once again years after I had children in this house, I distinctly remember (it seemed like a dream) introducing my children to these people who were exactly as everyone describes them to be as large big eyes quiet, but able to get across what they want to convey.
My children were scared but I remember saying don't be scared of these guys (knowing in my mind it was the big greys you had to be scared of). They're are different types, some nice and some very, very scary.
...a classical visit...
and then there is this abduction...
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reported By: Sean - Frankston, Victoria, Australia - Date: September 25, 2003
Subject: Abduction by Aliens - Location: Frankston, Victoria, Australia - Date: May 20 to 30, 1995 - Time: 2:30 PM - Zip Code: 3199 - Witnesses: 1-3 - Object's Shape: Cigar - Number of Objects: 1 - Object had lights - Object left a vapor trail - Object hovered - Object made sound - Additional Information: Just the start of many strange experiences
Event Description:
My first experience was way back in 1995. I recall it vividly due to the fact it was the day my High School band at the time were releasing our first demo recording.
I'd been on the phone to our drummer at about 2:30 PM, I told him I'd be over in about half an hour. I walked from my bedroom to the kitchen and a bright flash emanated through the window, like a lightning strike would look like at night. I then looked at my watch, it was 3:43 PM, I'd lost almost 75 minutes.
Ever since then I've had 2 unexplained scars on my lower abdomen, both exactly the same distance apart from my navel. I also have an unexplained perfect equilateral triangle patch of raw skin that changes occasionally from my left to right arms (note Dan and Simon from the Aust. UFO report page).
One year later I was walking along Frankston-Flinder Road near the BP and McDonalds and noticed a small light, not unlike a street light in the sky about 40 degrees from the horizon, as soon as I spotted it, it took off in a northerly direction at about 300 kmh.
...note the time difference...75 minutes in one minute...
that's it for now stay tuned and keep up your ideas and opinions!!!
r3n3g8b0y wrote:
bacterias found on a meteroite...get it?BACTERIAS...ON...A...METEROITE!!!
Never has been proven that those are in fact bacteria.
Also meteorites have been found to be contaminated by earth microorganisms when they sit in storage on earth.
r3n3g8b0y wrote:
alright, here's one of the classic sightings...80% of them are hoaxes...another 10-12% are government tests/or similar...but there's still 8% left...
this UFO was sighted in baghdad...an US vehicle???
Looks like a trash can lid was thrown up in the air.
I do believe in life on another planet. If anyone is interested I read a great book called Extraterrestrials:A field Guide for Earthlings. It looks at what life might look like according to natural selection and how they would live on the extreme. Check it out. Does anyone beleive in life in this solar system?
Abduction is basically either someone seeking attention or attention seeking someone...yep, basically its all composed of hoaxes that play on hype..the only 'true' ones left are those who we cannot determine for sure as NOT being hoaxes!
Anyway, life in our solar system is impossible as our little rock has taken up the only available sweet spot, really.
No life isn't a "Goldilocks" idea where things have to be just right. Look at underwater vents. Its scalding hot,spurts out toxins, is in a sunless abyss at the bottom of the ocean and is a hell spot. But it's filled with life from simple bacterium to crabs, sea cucumbers and jellyfish. Life could evolve on Eurpa and look like jelly fish. Even Jupiter is a habitable spot. Floating parachute-like plants can waft in the room temperature,food for giant floating sacks. The possiblities are endless.
Munch Munch! wrote:No life isn't a "Goldilocks" idea where things have to be just right. Look at underwater vents. Its scalding hot,spurts out toxins, is in a sunless abyss at the bottom of the ocean and is a hell spot. But it's filled with life from simple bacterium to crabs, sea cucumbers and jellyfish.
For us surface-dwelling humans, sure it is....but for 'em bacteria who evolved into that form over there, its sure heaven.
Turbo10k wrote:
The optimal depth where life will develop?
Perhaps. Assuming the rate of circulation isn't too high.
Turbo10k wrote:
Yep . But you're wrong for the solar radiation. It is difficult to deal with. Even after 3 billion years of evolution, UV filtered by 100km of atmosphere and a whole layer of ozone, can still cause cancers, skin diseases and random mutation, even underwater...This will be a even bigger concern for hot gas giant micro-organisms as, well, gas ain't protecting for much at acceptable pressures and temperatures. Our little aliens would have to have a much more robust chemistry (no RNA or DNA equivalents, they are much too complex), less reactive equivalents to our molecules and therefore slower metabolisms and growth rates (which is already limited by resources being hard to capture...).
Why? The only thing protecting us from solar radiation is gas. If anything the increase in distance from the outer atmosphere should serve to reduce the requirements for robustness of chemistry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Turbo10k wrote:
Anyway, life in our solar system is impossible as our little rock has taken up the only available sweet spot, really.
Mars isn't a terrible candidate. Though there certainly isn't anything living in a widespread sense.
They actually found water (frozen, so it's ice ) on Mars...and like i said, a few pages earlier, water is the essence of life and so there might have been life once...
Ice is too cold to be used as solvent medium...nothing dissolves in a solid! There is a surprising amount on water in the universe, its simply the combination of overabundant hydrogen and commonly found oxygen...its just that in this universe, temperatures are all extremes! Only solid and gas have been found so far.
By the way, dogma, what do you mean by rate of circulation? And, in a gas giant, what I was meaning is that there is going to be a LOT more UV and other radiation as its larger surface area means it absorbs quite a lot.
There has been seas, for certain, we've seen traces everywhere, just not hard solid (well, liquid) proof of water on Mars. Its just that it took perfect conditions on Earth 2 billion years to lead to life, Mars had sub-par conditions for not as long. Chances are pretty slim....
Earth was far different to what it is now when life formed. It was far from "perfect".
As has been stated over and over in this thread, life does not need more than a slim chance for it to exist. As exampled with such things as deep sea vents, bacteria frozen and thawed from arctic ice, etc.
The conditions on Mars are not massively harsh. It has been suggested that life could abound under the surface layer of rocks and dirt, relatively protected from extremes of heat.
But even so, Mars does have conditions which would be conductive to flowing water:
"The daytime SURFACE temperature is about 80 F during rare summer days, to -200 F at the poles in winter. The AIR temperature, however, rarely gets much above 32 F.
The temperatures on the two Viking landers, measured at 1.5 meters above the surface, range from + 1° F, ( -17.2° C) to -178° F (-107° C). However, the temperature of the surface at the winter polar caps drop to -225° F, (-143° C) while the warmest soil occasionally reaches +81° F (27° C) as estimated from Viking Orbiter Infrared Thermal Mapper.
In 2004, the Spirit rover recorded the warmest temperature around +5 C and the coldest is -15 Celsius in the Guisev Crater."
You also have to remember that the atmospheric pressure difference between Earth and Mars leads to a difference in the boiling and freezing point of substances.
Turbo10k wrote:
By the way, dogma, what do you mean by rate of circulation?
Transfer of gas from one 'layer' of the atmosphere to another.
Turbo10k wrote:
And, in a gas giant, what I was meaning is that there is going to be a LOT more UV and other radiation as its larger surface area means it absorbs quite a lot.
Does the level of exposure increase exponentially? I'm not all that familiar with how radiation behaves in a gaseous medium.
Well there are four times the amount of stars then grains of sand on our earth with about 13 planets for each of thosee stars with about 3 moons for each of those planets not counting all other bodies of land or ice or whatever in space. and if we can look and see stuff from earth that has developed from far away in space and if we can see far enough to know all these things exist you would think we could see structures of advanced beings elsewhere. Plus with the countless aeons that have passed an alien species could have developed and thrived for millions of years before being completely smashed by some cataclysim which is possible since we have only been around for about 20,000 years and every little thing threatens our society and our universe is 6 billion years old meaning 20,000 years is like a few milliseconds of an hour. It is also possible that we "could" be the first things to evolve and are currently the dominate creature in our universe. But... I don't know what to think. my logic and sense in this current state tell me that there is none but my thoughts philosophys and math tells me it could be highly possible or highly impossible. The only thing i know for sure is that i know nothing.
nethaniellovesthorpe wrote:Well there are four times the amount of stars then grains of sand on our earth with about 13 planets for each of thosee stars with about 3 moons for each of those planets not counting all other bodies of land or ice or whatever in space. and if we can look and see stuff from earth that has developed from far away in space and if we can see far enough to know all these things exist you would think we could see structures of advanced beings elsewhere. Plus with the countless aeons that have passed an alien species could have developed and thrived for millions of years before being completely smashed by some cataclysim which is possible since we have only been around for about 20,000 years and every little thing threatens our society and our universe is 6 billion years old meaning 20,000 years is like a few milliseconds of an hour. It is also possible that we "could" be the first things to evolve and are currently the dominate creature in our universe. But... I don't know what to think. my logic and sense in this current state tell me that there is none but my thoughts philosophys and math tells me it could be highly possible or highly impossible. The only thing i know for sure is that i know nothing.
See right here....this is exactly how you win threads..
what generalgrog said, and now that we ALL AGREE that live MUST EXIST somewhere out there...let's follow some logical steps...so...what would you do if you were part of an intelligent race(say humans allthough they're far from being intelligent)and you believe in life, somehwere out there...that's right you'd search for it and guess what? Yep we already started to do so http://www.alienresearchgroup.com/about_arg.php
now, people might say thats all just pipedreams, but like many people in this thread, people out there in this world and even scientists have said before...WHY DOES LIFE EXIST ON THIS PLANET? Was it just a coincidence? Are we a miracle, the only planet in hundreds of millions of trillions of other planets like ours out there? Or are we part of an intergalactic trade federation and only the worlds' ledaing governments know about that? I mean, not everything the government says is true and BY FAR, not everything they say is actually EVERYTHING if you know what i mean...
There are so many mysteries, conspiracies and facts out there ON EARTH yet to be explored...so if we've only discovered 75% of our own planet in about 4 million years...how can we possibly say, we've discovered what's ou there...
nethaniellovesthorpe wrote:Well there are four times the amount of stars then grains of sand on our earth with about 13 planets for each of thosee stars with about 3 moons for each of those planets not counting all other bodies of land or ice or whatever in space. and if we can look and see stuff from earth that has developed from far away in space and if we can see far enough to know all these things exist you would think we could see structures of advanced beings elsewhere. Plus with the countless aeons that have passed an alien species could have developed and thrived for millions of years before being completely smashed by some cataclysim which is possible since we have only been around for about 20,000 years and every little thing threatens our society and our universe is 6 billion years old meaning 20,000 years is like a few milliseconds of an hour. It is also possible that we "could" be the first things to evolve and are currently the dominate creature in our universe. But... I don't know what to think. my logic and sense in this current state tell me that there is none but my thoughts philosophys and math tells me it could be highly possible or highly impossible. The only thing i know for sure is that i know nothing.
Certainly. It's also the 'there's just too much of it for life not be possible' argument that has been posted so many times on this thread and has won over the rest of us! .
Anyway, this thread is about life BEYOND earth, so we shall try and forget about its origins as that would bring up the tricky, sticky subject of religion...and have this thread SHUT DOWN...
By the way, I don't think UV radiation absorption rises exponentially with surface area, sunlight sure doesn't but it is also electromagnetic radiation... My point was just that life on earth developed under easier conditions, under water, with a good layer of ozone...our poor floating bacterium wouldn't have them!
Well thank you all for your positive quotes. We might also want to consider with the universe being so big that we could be considered microscopic to everything else and just like bacteria is not really aware of us it could be hard for us to be aware of huge things. I like to think our universe was eaten by a gaint space fish and that is why it is so dark everywhere except the stars. and if you look at it stars can be compared to atoms because they are both forms of massive energy a star is just bigger and just like electrons we circle our star. Strange... how things so large and so small can be so similar.
r3n3g8b0y wrote:what generalgrog said, and now that we ALL AGREE that live MUST EXIST somewhere out there..
Rasies hand, and points out that I never agreed that life MUST EXIST. I only ever postulated that it MIGHT exist. "somehwhere out there"
The possibility that it MIGHT exist is exactly why science fiction is so much fun.
GG
Grr get over the might-must-existence of life. We only looking into how it is like after that question is answered by a YES. Otherwise, it'd be a preeeetty boring post replying to r3n3g8b0y's first post:
-Sorry chap, we know you have hopes about aliens and all, but its a clear NO. They would have given us free ice-cream otherwise, huh?
-Sorry chap, we know you have hopes about aliens and all, but its a clear NO. They would have given us free ice-cream otherwise, huh?
[/u]
like i said somewhere on page two or 3, they wouldn't be on the same technological level as us...i mean IF LIFE EXISTS (a shout to GG here, sorry for miss interpretating you mate) what are the chances of them being on the same level of technology as us? They might still be living in caves, or they could already eat air and use their minds to move things....
r3n3g8b0y wrote:like i said somewhere on page two or 3, they wouldn't be on the same technological level as us...i mean IF LIFE EXISTS (a shout to GG here, sorry for miss interpretating you mate) what are the chances of them being on the same level of technology as us? They might still be living in caves, or they could already eat air and use their minds to move things....
But the ting is that with life thought to be so common through the universe, there is a chance that there are a large number of species in the same technological timeframe as us at this given moment, or who went through it at a period which would enable us to see their radio signals (given that it is thought that a species which develops at the same rate technologically as we do would only have radio broadcasts detectable at any kind of distance for 200-300 years before they converted to tight beam and fibre optics, etc, and thus will not be broadcasting massive amounts of radio signals).
Either way, I don't really see what their technology level has to do with being able to detect and/or interact with them. It could be thought that the more advanced they are, the easier it is to communicate with them (given they will probably have better computers and/or brain power in order to work out what we are all saying and doing), or if they are much more primitive, as we can use more primitive communication methods to interact with them without offending them or something.
Mark 1: Use up entire energy available on home planet
Mark 2: Use up entire energy available on local star
Mark 3: Use up entire energy available Local Space (depends, about 2-3 solar systems in a densely packet area of the galaxy)
Humans are about Mark 0.7 in the 21st century. Ants and other numerous species are below 0.01. Anything else is too insignificant. Just to show how much we have to go.
An ant would only be able to interact with a relatively miniature park of ONE member of the Human species. It wouldn't understand anything of it (imagine a giant warm field with strange dark herbs, hot rivers pulsating beneath your feet, and moves around at the speed of your regular F1 car. You cling on with all the force you can summon, then squish, you die...) before you are destroyed by unfathomable force or simply ignored. Now imagine an Interstellar space ship built in the 25th century entering a solar system where strangely the home planet glows more brightly than the local star...as it approaches, it is ripped apart into plasma in a nanosecond, then compressed into a sphere 1 millimeter across and accelerated away at 95% on the speed of light.
In both cases, the level of civilization is too different for them to interact. IMHO, the two interacting members would have be on a fairly similar level for anything to happen. 500 years ago, we same humans wouldn't have understood head from tail of a nuclear reactor, so imagine a universe where life can take any shape or form, develop anytime or anywhere, with or without the intent to search you out...If that is the case, we could have already encountered hundreds of alien species without ever noticing.
PS: To further add credit to the 'super-advanced alien' theory, knowing that the universe is VERY hostile, an alien species intent on surviving would have to develop fast, very fast, into a mean, quick, sly armed-to-the-teeth civilisation...puny stone-age eggheads would be helpless if the all-too-common asteroid strike wipes them out. Look at us! In 1000 years, we moved from riding on horseback to proposing COMMERCIAL orbital flights, from slashing at each other with bronze swords to firing mach 7 slugs from a railgun, from sending letters that took weeks to reach another country to sending probes outside of our solar system!
Turbo10k wrote:Has anyone heard of civilization classification?
Mark 1: Use up entire energy available on home planet
Mark 2: Use up entire energy available on local star
Mark 3: Use up entire energy available Local Space (depends, about 2-3 solar systems in a densely packet area of the galaxy)
Maybe it was hot stuff in the industrial age, but how much of the most valued things of this time need XBOX HUEG amounts of energy to come into being? Pretty much none of them. It's all about information now.
well even if a race did emit radio waves we are still seeing everything millions of years in the past so if they existed in our current time frame we wouldnt be able to see them until millions of years from now by which another few million years would have passed so we couldnt really see unless we developed some rapid form of travel meaning we can safely assume that there wasnt anything in the past but pressently we cannot be sure because of the tricks of the eyes and the rate it takes light to travel we are ultiately blind to the rest of the universe.
nethaniellovesthorpe wrote:well even if a race did emit radio waves we are still seeing everything millions of years in the past so if they existed in our current time frame we wouldnt be able to see them until millions of years from now by which another few million years would have passed so we couldnt really see unless we developed some rapid form of travel meaning we can safely assume that there wasnt anything in the past but pressently we cannot be sure because of the tricks of the eyes and the rate it takes light to travel we are ultiately blind to the rest of the universe.
Well just about everything emits radio waves and even if they did not anything they did emit would take so long to reach us we would still be looking at the past. On nasa.com they have pictures of the universe and milky way in all the major forms of radiation and no matter the form it still takes to long to get to us. Radio waves are also the most promenient form of radiation emited because basiclly everything emits it except for a few dense elements which emit only other forms of radiation waves and not radio where as everything else does and unless they species is only made out of those specific elements they would otherwise emit radio waves along with the other forms of radiation.
but still, they could be using a far more advanced form of communication and they might be able to hide their radiowaves completely...nothin is impossible!!
I once read a SF story where a hyper-advance million-old alien race had built itself a virtual telepathic-webspace reality and didn't need energy beyond natural occuring phenomenon and didn't emit a squiggly bit of radio or anything! The main character got contacted by dreams...lol
Life can come in any shape or form. Change environment just a little bit (surface in L.A. vs 10 meters deep in the same bay) and see how life can adopt different life forms (ie the difference between a drunk nerd and seaweed)...now thats still on the West Board of the US, still on Earth, still orbiting the same sun...Now imagine a few lightyears away...Or rather, stop imagining. Your mind ain't broad enough.
Turbo10k wrote:Life can come in any shape or form. Change environment just a little bit (surface in L.A. vs 10 meters deep in the same bay) and see how life can adopt different life forms (ie the difference between a drunk nerd and seaweed)...now thats still on the West Board of the US, still on Earth, still orbiting the same sun...Now imagine a few lightyears away...Or rather, stop imagining. Your mind ain't broad enough.
Turbo10k wrote:Life can come in any shape or form. Change environment just a little bit (surface in L.A. vs 10 meters deep in the same bay) and see how life can adopt different life forms (ie the difference between a drunk nerd and seaweed)...now thats still on the West Board of the US, still on Earth, still orbiting the same sun...Now imagine a few lightyears away...Or rather, stop imagining. Your mind ain't broad enough.
Human brains are not wired to extrapolate logical connections between pieces of information (however unreliable) without experience based on real events, examples and memories...though crack and weed bypass the LOGICAL part of the imagination part.
Example #1: It is very easy to imagine what an underwater alien living far far away looks like...fish have designed the optimum shape for underwater travel, so physics says if we're still dealing with water, the optimum shape remains the same. Result: fish aliens look like...fish!
Example #2: How would an alien living in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter look/work/live like? I dunno! Where on earth do you have an environment filled with radiation, gaseous for a few thousand kilometers deep, very low pressurised and with little to no sunlight? Oh, and with completely different chemical composition? You find it! Then find the creature that lives there...then extrapolate logical links from THAT...!!
Turbo10k wrote:Human brains are not wired to extrapolate logical connections between pieces of information (however unreliable) without experience based on real events, examples and memories...though crack and weed bypass the LOGICAL part of the imagination part.
Example #1: It is very easy to imagine what an underwater alien living far far away looks like...fish have designed the optimum shape for underwater travel, so physics says if we're still dealing with water, the optimum shape remains the same. Result: fish aliens look like...fish!
Example #2: How would an alien living in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter look/work/live like? I dunno! Where on earth do you have an environment filled with radiation, gaseous for a few thousand kilometers deep, very low pressurised and with little to no sunlight? Oh, and with completely different chemical composition? You find it! Then find the creature that lives there...then extrapolate logical links from THAT...!!
We need something in this thread... hmmm... what could it be? Hmm... OH!!! RIGHT!!!
Wow, to prove your point in imagination, you picked a piece of fiction that twists reality...badly....with bad cartoons...and swear words...hundreds of 'em!!
Well, men, this thread is...as dead the xenos will be when we find them! There IS life beyond earth...DEAD LIFE!
explain...?
also i thought about it last night actually and I laughed at the thought of us being the only intelligent species in the universe, on the only habitable planet in the universe thats just ridiculous..
Haven't you seen "peanut butter is an atheist's worst nightmare?"
Pretentiousness!!! 
Wouldn't tentacles serve a similar purpose? How about an evolved elephant trunk or even evolved telekinetic abilities?
).
Chaos Protects 
.
that means in about 30-40 years we gotta live on the moon!
