Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - life on other planets
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closedlife on other planets
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Poll Question: do you believe there´s life out there?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
0 [0.00%]
1 [2.56%]
2 [5.13%]
5 [12.82%]
23 [58.97%]
6 [15.38%]
2 [5.13%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2008 at 06:49
Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:

Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

I won't say definitively because it's impossible to know for sure until we find it but I'd put the chances above 99%

Too many planets, plenty of them earthlike, for it not to have happened.  Probability says yes.  Sentient life is far less likely, of course.

but we have no idea what this life will be like at all. to quote Bones McCoy: "it's alive, Jim, but not as we know". this means life on another planet may not be based on DNA; there may be a completely different mechanism of procreation and storing of "genetic" (the name is misleading, since genes have a clear definition) information


I agree.


Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

What is life anyway? Confused


Originally posted by wiki wiki wrote:


  1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
  2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
  3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
  4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
  5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
  6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
  7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
Back to Top
BaldJean View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2008 at 05:34
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

I won't say definitively because it's impossible to know for sure until we find it but I'd put the chances above 99%

Too many planets, plenty of them earthlike, for it not to have happened.  Probability says yes.  Sentient life is far less likely, of course.

but we have no idea what this life will be like at all. to quote Bones McCoy: "it's alive, Jim, but not as we know". this means life on another planet may not be based on DNA; there may be a completely different mechanism of procreation and storing of "genetic" (the name is misleading, since genes have a clear definition) information


A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2008 at 04:39
I won't say definitively because it's impossible to know for sure until we find it but I'd put the chances above 99%

Too many planets, plenty of them earthlike, for it not to have happened.  Probability says yes.  Sentient life is far less likely, of course.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2008 at 03:50
Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:

the Baldies are living evidence for life on another planer. they are from a planet of which the name is difficult to write in Latin letters; "Wrzrllbrmdf" would come closest, but there are some sounds in our language for which no transcription exists, like smacking of lips and whistles. we don't use vowels. anyway, spoken language is a relic; we communicate via telepathy meanwhile.
in our world we don't have men anymore; we got rid of them centuries ago. kids are being created by merging two egg cells. that way only women can be created (no Y-chromosome).
we have come to earth to prepare our invasion. we will overtake your planet, kill all men and turn all women into baldies too. you may thnk it is foolish of me to tell, but who will believe you when you try to warn the world of our plans? Wink
And in the time honoured way, we will defeat you with these:
 
...and these:
What?
Back to Top
BaldJean View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:47
the Baldies are living evidence for life on another planer. they are from a planet of which the name is difficult to write in Latin letters; "Wrzrllbrmdf" would come closest, but there are some sounds in our language for which no transcription exists, like smacking of lips and whistles. we don't use vowels. anyway, spoken language is a relic; we communicate via telepathy meanwhile.
in our world we don't have men anymore; we got rid of them centuries ago. kids are being created by merging two egg cells. that way only women can be created (no Y-chromosome).
we have come to earth to prepare our invasion. we will overtake your planet, kill all men and turn all women into baldies too. you may thnk it is foolish of me to tell, but who will believe you when you try to warn the world of our plans? Wink


A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Back to Top
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 08 2008 at 21:59
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:


Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:


Most likely.  Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses.

But does the celebrated formula have an empirical basis or is it deducible from well-established scientific results?  This is not to be dismissed, unless, of course, we are not interested in discussing this matter in a scientific context.
Yes and No. The equation is based on having found life on one planet orbiting a nondescript yellow dwarf star on the outer rim of a spiral galaxy, so the only empirical data is scant to say the least. This is why (estimated) results given for the equation vary greatly, indeed many of the parameters are empirically unmeasurable, so are 'calculated guesses' at best - (or pure fantasy, depending upon your point of view).
 
The use of the equation is not so much in calculating the number of possible planets containing technologically advanced intelligent lifeforms that are capable of being detected by radio waves, but in speculating means of determining each of the individual parameters, (rather than their actual values). For example the more accurately we can measure the 'wobble' of stars, the more accurately we can determine whether planetary bodies are orbiting that star and the more accurately we can speculate a value for fp

Although I intended my comment in a rhetorical sense, you answered it reasonably well.

Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:


A bit of personal speculation.  It seems that there isn't any very good reason to believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life, or at least I haven't encountered any such arguments.  It may well be that we wouldn't recognize such entities, but in that case it would be useless for us to discuss it.
From a scientific view, belief does not figure - it is pure speculation based upon sound scientific reasoning - it can never be proven wrong since space is infinite, and it is unlikely that it will ever be proven right because the distances between stars is vast.

If "it can never be proven wrong" then it is not falsifiable, whence it does fall under the purview of science.  Of course, this doesn't preclude it existentially.  Also the assertion that "space is infinite" remains controversial.

So by flipping that around, the idea that life does not exist anywhere else in the Universe is equally as unprovable.

Theoretically, both claims are provable; however, their verification is practically unattainable.
 
Once you remove the "little-green men" and all the Area 51 nonsense from the concept of extraterrestrial life and just look at the problem of how life can exist on different worlds we learn more about how life does exist on this planet and how changes in the environment, biology, physics, etc. of this world can affect the balance of life.

Extremely difficult problem, I think you'll agree.
 
Recognition of those extraterrestrials is in the main, irrelevant - they can never get here for us to recognise them and we will never be able to visit them, even if we knew where to look. 
 
Useless for us to discuss? Probably Wink, but mind-games like these are something that some humans enjoy just to pass the time - the notion that there could be other lifeforms in the Universe playing the same mind-games doubles the fun. Big%20smile

Ha-ha.  But I mean "useless" in the literal sense, i.e. we can't draw any substantial conclusions.  Of course, it's still interesting to talk about it (hence our present exchange).
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65250 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 08 2008 at 20:56
Well according to the headline at the top of this page, "Life on other planets posts on Progressive Rock Music Forum",  so evidently it not only exists, but has great taste.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 08 2008 at 20:38
Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:

Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Most likely.  Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses.


But does the celebrated formula have an empirical basis or is it deducible from well-established scientific results?  This is not to be dismissed, unless, of course, we are not interested in discussing this matter in a scientific context.
Yes and No. The equation is based on having found life on one planet orbiting a nondescript yellow dwarf star on the outer rim of a spiral galaxy, so the only empirical data is scant to say the least. This is why (estimated) results given for the equation vary greatly, indeed many of the parameters are empirically unmeasurable, so are 'calculated guesses' at best - (or pure fantasy, depending upon your point of view).
 
The use of the equation is not so much in calculating the number of possible planets containing technologically advanced intelligent lifeforms that are capable of being detected by radio waves, but in speculating means of determining each of the individual parameters, (rather than their actual values). For example the more accurately we can measure the 'wobble' of stars, the more accurately we can determine whether planetary bodies are orbiting that star and the more accurately we can speculate a value for fp

Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:


A bit of personal speculation.  It seems that there isn't any very good reason to believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life, or at least I haven't encountered any such arguments.  It may well be that we wouldn't recognize such entities, but in that case it would be useless for us to discuss it.
From a scientific view, belief does not figure - it is pure speculation based upon sound scientific reasoning - it can never be proven wrong since space is infinite, and it is unlikely that it will ever be proven right because the distances between stars is vast. So by flipping that around, the idea that life does not exist anywhere else in the Universe is equally as unprovable.
 
Once you remove the "little-green men" and all the Area 51 nonsense from the concept of extraterrestrial life and just look at the problem of how life can exist on different worlds we learn more about how life does exist on this planet and how changes in the environment, biology, physics, etc. of this world can affect the balance of life.
 
Recognition of those extraterrestrials is in the main, irrelevant - they can never get here for us to recognise them and we will never be able to visit them, even if we knew where to look. 
 
Useless for us to discuss? Probably Wink, but mind-games like these are something that some humans enjoy just to pass the time - the notion that there could be other lifeforms in the Universe playing the same mind-games doubles the fun. Big%20smile
What?
Back to Top
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 08 2008 at 19:44
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Most likely.  Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses.


But does the celebrated formula have an empirical basis or is it deducible from well-established scientific results?  This is not to be dismissed, unless, of course, we are not interested in discussing this matter in a scientific context.

A bit of personal speculation.  It seems that there isn't any very good reason to believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life, or at least I haven't encountered any such arguments.  It may well be that we wouldn't recognize such entities, but in that case it would be useless for us to discuss it.
Back to Top
TGM: Orb View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 08 2008 at 18:55
Who knows?

I really don't care whether there is or isn't. We've got our own problems to fix first.
Back to Top
crimhead View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 08 2008 at 18:43
not in our solar system but it is possible in others.
Back to Top
Vompatti View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 08 2008 at 18:12
What is life anyway? Confused
Back to Top
clarke2001 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 08 2008 at 17:14
Life, absolutely. Intelligent life, I'm not so sure. Probably not in this time, in this galaxy. Pity...

But then again, many values of parameters in Drake's equation are unknown, so I can at least hope..
Back to Top
Norbert View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 2506 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 08 2008 at 13:45
There is a life on Kobaia. 
Back to Top
BroSpence View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 07 2008 at 22:49
is difficult
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 07 2008 at 22:33
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Such an interesting topic - led me on about an hour's worth of "wiki-ing" that had me reading about the Cambrian explosion and the evolution of the eye.  Confused


It annoys me when that happens... I was doing that earlier. LOL  I kept clicking on the relevant links and never getting back to where I started.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 07 2008 at 21:09
Originally posted by Kestrel Kestrel wrote:

There probably are, but I doubt we'll ever meet. The nearest galaxy to ours is the Andromeda Galaxy which is 2.5 million light-years away. If we ever developed technology that could bring us near the speed of light... it would still take us 2.5 million years to get there. Unless we develop some teleport technology or wormhole stuff or something... I don't see a point in even thinking there is anything out there.

Edit: I guess there are closer galaxies to us than the Andromeda galaxy; it's just the nearest spiral galaxy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_galaxies

Even with the closest one which is .02 million light years away... that's still 20,000 light years away... I can't imagine ever reaching that. Unless Star Trek happens.



Even staying within our own galaxy (which I consider big enough for our current purposes, thank you very much Wink), the nearest extrasolar planet is 10.5 light years away.  If we were to launch a probe like Voyager 1 to study it (traveling at 17.1 km/s), it would take over 17,000 years to reach the planet - which has been determined to be a Jupiter-sized (mass) planet, so probably no little green men to greet it anyway.

Remember the wise old (and late) Douglas Adams:  Space is big.


Edited by NaturalScience - July 07 2008 at 21:10
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 07 2008 at 21:07
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:


Ah, I knew you would find your way to this thread.  Tongue

like a circling buzzard Wink
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:


Such an interesting topic - led me on about an hour's worth of "wiki-ing" that had me reading about the Cambrian explosion and the evolution of the eye.  Confused
The eye is the easy bit - 'tis colour vision that takes some explaining
What?
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 07 2008 at 21:01
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Most likely.  Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses.
Ah, that would be me then Embarrassed
 
The Drake equation (N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL) is concerned with predicting the number of planets that could support a technological intelligent lifeform whose electromagnetic radiation (tv, radio etc.) we could detect now, so it specifically concerns itself with planets within our galaxy. What it does not predict is the infinitesimally small probability of us ever detected said radiation.
 
So, since we can never hope to detect the technological intelligent lifeforms in our own galaxy, there is no reason to exclude the other galaxies in the Universes and we can also remove the intelligence, technological and planetary lifetime factors from the equation, therefore the total number of possible planets that possibly could support (or have supported, or will support) life of any kind is, as they say, astronomical.


Ah, I knew you would find your way to this thread.  Tongue

Such an interesting topic - led me on about an hour's worth of "wiki-ing" that had me reading about the Cambrian explosion and the evolution of the eye.  Confused
Back to Top
Statutory-Mike View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 15 2008
Location: Long Island
Status: Offline
Points: 3737 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 07 2008 at 20:15
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Most likely.  Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses.
 
The Drake Equation is pretty interesting, I'm thinking there is but we won't come in contact with them anytime soon.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.121 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.