• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

alien life possibility is pathetic

Joe, thats not just that. Out of the 100's billions of stars in each galaxy, how many are habitable? How many have hot jupiters? The right location? And so on.
 
makaya325 said:
Long, the other theories that contend that earth is typical is ridicolous. Every day, we are finding things that make earth seem like a precise gem in a deadly factory.
Click to expand...

The highlighted statement is false. If it's true, please give me today's finding, yesterday's finding and the finding from the day before that.

Now--toss out your hyperbole and what exactly are you saying? What evidence is there that the Earth is unique in the galaxy or universe?
 
makaya325 said:
Long, the other theories that contend that earth is typical is ridicolous. Every day, we are finding things that make earth seem like a precise gem in a deadly factory. Tell me, do you even have the feeling to suggest anything like us could even exist?
Click to expand...

>>>the other theories that contend that earth is typical is ridicolous.

Because.......

>>>Every day, we are finding things that make earth seem like a precise gem in a deadly factory.

such as..........

they cant be duplicated anywhere in the universe because...........


>>>do you even have the feeling to suggest anything like us could even exist

"we" exist and i see nothing that conclusively shows that "we" cant be duplicated elsewhere. What do you know that suggests otherwise?

Now, fill in the above gaps and make your answers and explanations very detailed.
 
makaya325 said:
Joe, thats not just that. Out of the 100's billions of stars in each galaxy, how many are habitable?
Click to expand...
That's unknown. Do you have information that the rest of us aren't privy to?

How many have hot jupiters? The right location? And so on.
Click to expand...
Also unknown. (And see above about the supposed "necessity" of a Jupiter-like planet at the right distance from a potential life-bearing planet.)

So far, though, every time we've developed techniques to detect extra solar planets of a given mass range, we have found them in abundance. One study estimates that Earth-like (that is, rocky planets between 1 and 10 Earth masses) may be as frequent as one per every three single stars. (Sorry--can't find the source at the moment--I posted it on another one of these threads not too long ago. I'll find it later on.)
 
makaya325 said:
Jcr, i view even simple life as a problem. It is not whether life (extreme) can survive on the planet, but could they have formed? The case seems to be no, and that the earth, which is incredibly diverse in species, a couple million, is unique
Click to expand...

Yes No proof that life has formed anywhere else.
Evidence that we have very tough lifeforms here on Earth certainly.
And if we find evidence of a past life on Mars be it small and microbial.
Then we need to discover why it wasn't so successful.
Until then happy speculating. But Mars looks of a Promising withholder
of possible past life. Maybe even current life of the microscopic kind.
Do you believe that we must observe more deeply into this matter ?
Or should we turn off the Robots on Mars.
 
I came late to this and do not know why we would need a "hot" Jupiter for life to form on Earth. I do see Mak making a lot of claims without any links supporting them. Life on Earth exists in temperatures lower than -40C to over 100C. In the deep oceans at divergence zones very hot water is created at very high pressure, and life can live due to this energy. Life is much more tenacious than originally thought. Has Mak provided any links in this argument or just claimed his "facts" were true?
 
makaya325 said:
long, your incorrect. Scientists know quite alot of the galaxy we live in.
Click to expand...

At what distance can these scientists detect Earth-mass extrasolar planets in our galaxy? (What percentage of the volume of the galaxy is that?) At what distance can we determine the temperature range on the surface of these planets?

As an aside, "alot" is not a word, and "your" is the wrong word. Sorry--it's a character defect. I can't help noticing that sort of thing.
 
makaya325 said:
Every day, we are finding things that make earth seem like a precise gem in a deadly factory.
Click to expand...

There's another one of your completely unsupported, and wrong, statements.

Do you realize that if earth-size planets orbit other stars, we don't have the technology to see them?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
As an aside, "alot" is not a word, and "your" is the wrong word. Sorry--it's a character defect. I can't help noticing that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Me neither, and for the sake of fairness, I must point out that you meant "led", not "lead", in this post.

Subduction Zone said:
I came late to this and do not know why we would need a "hot" Jupiter for life to form on Earth.
Click to expand...

We don't. There's no evidence for that at all. The requirement for a large moon, although long discredited, was at one time believed by some scientists. I can't say the same for the "hot" Jupiter requirement. The earth is too far away from Jupiter to receive any of Jupiter's heat.
 
Godless, most stars we found exoplanets around, have hot jupiters, erasing the possibility of habitable terrestrial planets forming
 
"Its not as life as we know it, Jim!"

Stop being such carbon chauvinists.

One can have an interesting time looking at the information (and speculation) at:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/06/noncarbon_lifef.html

This life described here would not last a second if it was moved to the surface of this planet.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/05/atomic-extremeo.html

Atomic Extremeophiles Thrive Where the Life-Giving Energy of the Sun Never Reaches

"Life finds a way." Thanks to a research time involving Princeton, Indiana University, and others, that isn't just a sappy Disney quote - it's an incredible fact. They found extremophile bacteria buried over two miles into solid rock, where the life-giving energy of the sun never reaches - the energy every other species on Earth depends on. Instead they found their own power source - radiation!

The hardy organisms have a unique biology with a very refined palate, consuming the by-products of radioactive breakdown to stay alive. Uranium decay cracks water molecules apart, recombining into peroxide (which you might know as bleach). This combines with fool's gold (pyrite) to release ions, which the cells' specialized metabolism can derive energy from. To summarize: these things sit on uranium, drink bleach and eat solid rock, thereby making every single "Iron Stomach" contest in human history look like a day at the buffet. Hell, these things make Batman look like a daycare attendant.
Click to expand...
(my bolding)

And then again, one could read the works of Olaf_StapledonWP. ;)
 
Maybe I have gotten it backwards, now it seems he is claiming that a "hot" Jupiter would prevent life. I don't know if makaya is familiar with the inverse square relationship of energy and a "hot" Jupiter would have very little effect on Earth. Also the reason why the majority of planets discovered have been "hot" Jupiters is easy to understand. The only planets we can see at interstellar distances are gas giants. The bigger a planet is, the more likely we are to be able to observe it. Also the larger a planet is the more likely it is to be a "hot" Jupiter. So the reason we see so many Hot Jupiters is not due to their prevalence, it is more likely due to the fact that anything smaller with today's equipment is very difficult to observe.
 
makaya325 said:
Godless, most stars we found exoplanets around, have hot jupiters, erasing the possibility of habitable terrestrial planets forming
Click to expand...
For the simple reason that they are the easiest to find. To find smaller planets in longer orbits takes a much longer observation time, very sensitive equipment, and careful analysis. But they're starting to be found, such as this planet, found over two and a half years ago.

As for how much of the Galaxy we know, maybe this little picture from NASA might help you to visualise it;

9574973c8a6aebf9.jpg


What you can see is that, in terms of extra-solar planets, we know a little bit about a very tiny area in the local vicinity of the Sun. I say we know a little bit, because, as I said, our instruments aren't sensitive to lower mass planets, so we don't expect to know anything much about them yet.

As for Fermi's paradox, it's a red herring. There are several possible reasons why we haven't yet encountered or detected alien life. It's only a paradox if you start with the assumption that there is at least one advanced alien civilization with the capability of interstellar travel.

Even assuming that there is life on other planets in this Galaxy, we may not detect it for a very long time. Even the most generous calculations of Drake's equation give values of 10 advanced civilizations in the Galaxy at any single time, which when you look at the above graphic suggests that we haven't explored anything like enough space to find other inhabited planets, particularly taking in to account.

You might argue that a technologically advanced civilization would have been broadcasting TV and radio signals, which we could detect, but that too is a red herring. The TV and radio that we broadcast are rather weak, and would be undetectable beyond just a few light years from the Sun. Furthermore, most countries in the world are converting to cable and satellite broadcasting, with conventional EM broadcasting rapidly becoming a thing of the past. In less than 50 years the Earth will have almost completely stopped broadcasting such signals. That means that we will have spent only about 100 years sending these signal out into space. Think about that for a moment, about 100 years. Assuming that an advanced alien civilization followed a similar evolution in technology it would mean that they'd have to be close enough to us that their signals were still detectable, and they'd have to have developed their technology at exactly the right time in order for their 100 years of signals to be passing us at the same time as we were looking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom