Since: Dec 10
Perth, Australia
|
Please wait...
Who doesn't love what scientists are capable of and how far they have come...without them we would all still be mushrooms :(
|
|
Kurt
Ventura, CA
|
Judged:
1
1
If we find a planet with intelligent life let's name it something silly no matter what their objections.
|
|
Since: Aug 09
Tasmania
|
Please wait...
Judged:
2
1
Kurt wrote: If we find a planet with intelligent life let's name it something silly no matter what their objections. As our galaxy and solar system are very young, if we find intelligent life it would be logical to assume they would do all they can to keep us away, as they may be millions of years ahead of us and to survive that long, would have to have real intelligence and not delusional idiocy. Who wants to become involved with a life form whose sole direction is extinction of life via their greed and destructive lifestyle. Wait until they realise light is one of the slowest things in our dimensional universe and distance only exists like time, a concept.
|
|
Since: Dec 10
Perth, Australia
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
Palawa wrote: <quoted text>
As our galaxy and solar system are very young, if we find intelligent life it would be logical to assume they would do all they can to keep us away, as they may be millions of years ahead of us and to survive that long, would have to have real intelligence and not delusional idiocy. Who wants to become involved with a life form whose sole direction is extinction of life via their greed and destructive lifestyle.
Wait until they realise light is one of the slowest things in our dimensional universe and distance only exists like time, a concept. Or for all we know, if there is a another life form out there....it might only be in its infancy, similar to our cave man era...so what makes you believe that they would necessarily be more advanced, or even have the ability to rationalise...they might have a brain the size of a walnut...who really knows...
|
|
Kurt
Ventura, CA
|
Palawa wrote: <quoted text>
As our galaxy and solar system are very young, if we find intelligent life it would be logical to assume they would do all they can to keep us away, as they may be millions of years ahead of us and to survive that long, would have to have real intelligence and not delusional idiocy. Who wants to become involved with a life form whose sole direction is extinction of life via their greed and destructive lifestyle.
Wait until they realise light is one of the slowest things in our dimensional universe and distance only exists like time, a concept. With all of the improbable factors that had to have happened in order for life to bloom, the odds are very high that we don't exist.
|
|
Myth Buster
Kuching, Malaysia
|
Judged:
1
Ahomana wrote: <quoted text>
Or for all we know, if there is a another life form out there....it might only be in its infancy, similar to our cave man era...so what makes you believe that they would necessarily be more advanced, or even have the ability to rationalise...they might have a brain the size of a walnut...who really knows... It is definitely possible that some more advanced life forms have evolved on other solar systems. May be they have evolved much longer than us. May be they less astroids strikes which in our case kill off 90% of living creatures every few 100 mil years. May be they have more favorable mineral mix.
|
|
Since: Dec 10
Perth, Australia
|
Please wait...
Myth Buster wrote: <quoted text>
It is definitely possible that some more advanced life forms have evolved on other solar systems.
May be they have evolved much longer than us.
May be they less astroids strikes which in our case kill off 90% of living creatures every few 100 mil years.
May be they have more favorable mineral mix. And maybe they are not so evolved either maybe their years are longer than ours maybe they age slower being slower to mature and procreate....maybe they have no animals or vitamin rich foods to eat so their intelligence is lower, maybe they are pink with purple spots..or maybe there is no other life in our reachable solar systems save ours....all these things are possible but mostly improbable. it's interesting to speculate though!
|
|
Since: Aug 09
Tasmania
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Ahomana wrote: <quoted text>
Or for all we know, if there is a another life form out there....it might only be in its infancy, similar to our cave man era...so what makes you believe that they would necessarily be more advanced, or even have the ability to rationalise...they might have a brain the size of a walnut...who really knows... Logical thinking people would understand intelligent life within this dimensional universe would cover every stage of evolution, still denial of reality is common within unevolving ideological slaves. Our galaxy is young and small, our star system is even younger and smaller compared to those within our own. Their very conservative estimate at 1.6 planets per star within billions of stars, leaves an extremely high incidence of life. Astronomers are already looking at galaxies 13.5 billion years away that dwarf our own by many times, so they would have to be almost that much older than ours. Now any form of real intelligence, who would still exist within these galaxies would not have destroyed their planet, so would look very much down upon life forms who have so little intelligence they are prepared to destroy the only place capable of supporting them.
|
|
|
Since: Aug 09
Tasmania
|
Please wait...
Kurt wrote: <quoted text>
With all of the improbable factors that had to have happened in order for life to bloom, the odds are very high that we don't exist. It depends on your definition of life and whether the factors involved were improbable. When you look at the unfolding universe, nothing seems improbable but likely.
|
|
Since: Dec 10
Perth, Australia
|
Please wait...
Palawa wrote: <quoted text>
Logical thinking people would understand intelligent life within this dimensional universe would cover every stage of evolution, still denial of reality is common within unevolving ideological slaves.
Our galaxy is young and small, our star system is even younger and smaller compared to those within our own. Their very conservative estimate at 1.6 planets per star within billions of stars, leaves an extremely high incidence of life.
Astronomers are already looking at galaxies 13.5 billion years away that dwarf our own by many times, so they would have to be almost that much older than ours. Now any form of real intelligence, who would still exist within these galaxies would not have destroyed their planet, so would look very much down upon life forms who have so little intelligence they are prepared to destroy the only place capable of supporting them. Intelligence is explained in different ways....it could be that a being that hasn't the ability to communicate except in clicks and grunts compared to those with litteracy and articulated speach are not all that intelligent....do you see where I am coming from?....When most people talk about intelligent beings inhabiting other planets they are talking about " a supreme intelligence" in comparison to ours, a much higher level if you like?..So finding something on a par with the neandathals on another planet would be advantageous to scientists and to those wanting to exploit them and their planets resources(if any) but a definate dissapointment in regards to having ships that can travel the galaxies in months compared to thousands of years...or a new fuel source etc...And the presumtion that they would look down on us, is just that...for all you know they might see the distress and want to help because they have discovered what we have not yet...if they are beings...with a head two legs etc...twilight zone music playing in background....it's a moot point isn't it?
|
|
Myth Buster
Kuching, Malaysia
|
Ahomana wrote: <quoted text>
And maybe they are not so evolved either maybe their years are longer than ours maybe they age slower being slower to mature and procreate....maybe they have no animals or vitamin rich foods to eat so their intelligence is lower, maybe they are pink with purple spots..or maybe there is no other life in our reachable solar systems save ours....all these things are possible but mostly improbable. it's interesting to speculate though! Evolution of living creatures actually follows certain fairly predictable path. The pink creatures have reasons to be pink; may be to attract mates. Those colorful creatures are often toxic or they may end up attracting attackers. The intelligent ones have better chance of survival because they have better strategy at using the resources. The question is whether they become so smart that they nuke themselves out of existence and create an environment that only cockroaches can survive. I think if we scan through our galaxy we will be able to find wreckages of such evolution. It is also quite likely that some of these surviving cockroaches given enough time will claim that they are the chosen cockroaches of a six legged God.
|
|
Since: Dec 10
Perth, Australia
|
Please wait...
Myth Buster wrote: <quoted text>
Evolution of living creatures actually follows certain fairly predictable path. The pink creatures have reasons to be pink; may be to attract mates. Those colorful creatures are often toxic or they may end up attracting attackers. The intelligent ones have better chance of survival because they have better strategy at using the resources. The question is whether they become so smart that they nuke themselves out of existence and create an environment that only cockroaches can survive.
I think if we scan through our galaxy we will be able to find wreckages of such evolution. It is also quite likely that some of these surviving cockroaches given enough time will claim that they are the chosen cockroaches of a six legged God. Great post!...
|
|
Elias
Wheelers Hill, Australia
|
Myth Buster wrote: <quoted text>I think if we scan through our galaxy we will be able to find wreckages of such evolution. It is also quite likely that some of these surviving cockroaches given enough time will claim that they are the chosen cockroaches of a six legged God. No sign yet, cameras have now scoured the surfaces of many of our planets and found no "tangible" evidence of visitation or settlement. Currently there is a NASA project to identify and observe earthlike planets to determine if they emit artificial light during darkness (i.e. a sign there is life using an artificial light source).
|
|
“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”
Since: Jan 11
Adelaide, Australia
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
"Astronomers see more planets than stars in galaxy" This was always on the cards from the first time astronomers worked out how stars form. As interstellar gas clumps and collapses it's more likely than not that it will not do so with textbook precision. There will be stray orbiting debris that will congeal into planets. Most likely many. Just look at our own solar system. In fact it has been calculated that at least one substantial planet and possibly more are by now missing from it, ejected long ago by gravitational conflicts. They are by now far away roaming interstellar space dark and alone. If we are to presume that our solar system is more the rule than the exception, then even a speculated average of two planets per star is hugely conservative. It seems to make more sense that the number of planets in our own solar system is the average. Rather than pop culture hyperbole, the expression "squillions" starts to take on new respectability when talking of planets in the Universe. With odds like that, the chances of habitable planets elsewhere far surpasses the Paul Hogan "better'n average". As to what life forms stir on those distant worlds one thing is fairly certain ... it will not resemble us as closely as we sometimes like to fantasize. Our own Earth has been buffeted by cosmic, meteorological, geological and volcanic upheavals at many times in its 4.5-billion year history. Since the first appearance of life here, many of those crises have caused mass extinctions, some almost total. Evolution itself has had to almost start over several times. Each of those crises produced mutations and selective adaptations that shaped life up to the present. Since all of those crises were random, then they would almost certainly not repeat in the same ways if it were possible to rewind and replay our planet's history. Even less likely is it that any planet elsewhere experienced the exact same sequence of crises that our planet has lived through. Therefore no other planet would have brewed its biological Evolution to the same recipe. Instead it would have had its own unique recipe, as has our planet. It really shows up the prescience of that StarTrek line: "It's life Jim, but not as we know it".:)
|
|
Myth Buster
Kuching, Malaysia
|
Judged:
1
The ADELAIDEAN wrote: Since all of those crises were random, then they would almost certainly not repeat in the same ways if it were possible to rewind and replay our planet's history.
Even less likely is it that any planet elsewhere experienced the exact same sequence of crises that our planet has lived through. Therefore no other planet would have brewed its biological Evolution to the same recipe. Instead it would have had its own unique recipe, as has our planet.
It really shows up the prescience of that StarTrek line:
"It's life Jim, but not as we know it".:) All the laws of physics, as far as we know, applies to every part of the universe. Assuming the news planets discovered are made up of duct from previous super-stars explosion like our sun, all the elements will be the same. Oxygen will behave like oxygen, carbon will behave like carbon. The chemistry on our periodic table applies to to them as well. For living thing to fly they need wings; for them to swim they need certain body shape; for plants to catch sunlight the need leaves. I will be surprised if they are can deviate very far from these rules. When the Australian continent broke away from the rest of earth's land mass the Marsupial mammals evolved in isolation. Yet, we see that the marsupial mouse looks like a mouse. The Tasmanian tiger look like a dog. The numbat looks like squarel The marsupial lion looks like a Leopard. If we find a planet with similar temp. gravity, wind conditions... to that of earth the chance is life out there will be similar to earth.
|
|
Since: Aug 09
Tasmania
|
Please wait...
Myth Buster wrote: <quoted text>
All the laws of physics, as far as we know, applies to every part of the universe.
Assuming the news planets discovered are made up of duct from previous super-stars explosion like our sun, all the elements will be the same. Oxygen will behave like oxygen, carbon will behave like carbon. The chemistry on our periodic table applies to to them as well.
For living thing to fly they need wings; for them to swim they need certain body shape; for plants to catch sunlight the need leaves.
I will be surprised if they are can deviate very far from these rules.
When the Australian continent broke away from the rest of earth's land mass the Marsupial mammals evolved in isolation.
Yet, we see that the marsupial mouse looks like a mouse.
The Tasmanian tiger look like a dog.
The numbat looks like squarel
The marsupial lion looks like a Leopard.
If we find a planet with similar temp. gravity, wind conditions... to that of earth the chance is life out there will be similar to earth. Physics is a human concept and very flawed, it doesn't fit with what they are discovering in cosmology, astronomy and astrophysics daily. It's the same with every concept humans develop, it is not log before it is proven wrong and another conceptual theory has to be developed. Carbon, water, hydrogen, are extremely common in the known aspects of the universe and we only know of life from our own extremely minuscule narrow windowed existence. It is the height of ignorant arrogance to believe we know anything at all above very simplistic concepts, as we don't. When you look at the small number of places where life could theoretically exist in our solar system, you can see it would need to be very different in it's makeup and lifestyle. We already know life can exist in conditions extremely hostile in various forms on our own planet, so logically there's no reason why it can't exist in billions of different forms and capacities throughout the universe. The universe is big, big, big and we can't even see our nearest celestial neighbour without a telescope. Don't forget the impossible task of visiting it with our current physics, It's taken more than 3o years for a small probe to get to the edge of the solar system, even at 100 times the speed, it's a long long way.
|
|
“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”
Since: Jan 11
Port Willunga, Australia
|
Please wait...
Myth Buster wrote: <quoted text>
All the laws of physics, as far as we know, applies to every part of the universe.
Assuming the news planets discovered are made up of duct from previous super-stars explosion like our sun, all the elements will be the same. Oxygen will behave like oxygen, carbon will behave like carbon. The chemistry on our periodic table applies to to them as well.
For living thing to fly they need wings; for them to swim they need certain body shape; for plants to catch sunlight the need leaves.
I will be surprised if they are can deviate very far from these rules.
When the Australian continent broke away from the rest of earth's land mass the Marsupial mammals evolved in isolation.
Yet, we see that the marsupial mouse looks like a mouse.
The Tasmanian tiger look like a dog.
The numbat looks like squarel
The marsupial lion looks like a Leopard.
If we find a planet with similar temp. gravity, wind conditions... to that of earth the chance is life out there will be similar to earth. I agree with much of what you say. When you talk about the consistency everywhere of the Laws Of Physics, and the behavior of matter at the molecular and atomic level giving rise to consistent behavior predicted by the Periodic Table, I have no problem with that. The materials are produced in stars and they behave in ways assigned by universal forces that are the same everywhere. At the micro level, so far so good. But it's what happens to those selections of matter at the macro level after they are formed that is my focus. How they interact, and what life forms they produce are influenced by environments that are more prone to variation. Consider this: The Dinosaurs were the most successful land species on Earth. They had existed the longest, in their time much longer than humans have. If an environmental disaster had not wiped them out 65-million years ago, and instead they had been able to go on developing, what might they look like today, and how might they have learned to behave? They might have become Earth's equivalent to humans. But conditions that favored them ended, and so did they. Also they grew so big partly because they could ... the air back in their time did not contain the 21% of Oxygen that we have now. Instead it contained up to 33% Oxygen, enabling very big bodies to metabolize big food for big fuel. Taking your own point, Oxygen does the same thing today that it did in Dinosaur times. But Oxygen was distributed differently then, and was accessible differently. At one time there was no Oxygen in Earth's air and Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide dominated, favoring very different life forms ... Cyanobacteria, nothing like most species to day. So the point I was making is that if random extinctions like the Asteroid impact that killed the Dinosaurs, and many other disasters before that had not happened, or had happened differently at different times than they did, then the progress of Evolution on Earth would have progressed differently. It will have progressed differently on other planets too. Some might have escaped Asteroid impacts altogether, or have no Moon to produce tides, or spin on a straight axis that produces no seasons to challenge life forms, or not spin at all and keep one side always to their sun, so that the only safe place to live is on the narrow band of twilight between eternal scorching day and eternal freezing night, so their sunlight never comes from overhead but only like a sunset. These and many other things produce different body features. Between our lifeforms and theirs there would be certain similarities ... of course. But there would also be certain differences. It would be a mixture of similarities and differences.:)
|
|
The Fixer
Toronto, Canada
|
Taking a bit of a risk there, old Daffy Dill. I'll give you a bit of a break but just this once. Just remember though I am still waiting.
|
|
Myth Buster
Kuching, Malaysia
|
The ADELAIDEAN wrote: <quoted text>
I agree with much of what you say.
When you talk about the consistency everywhere of the Laws Of Physics, and the behavior of matter at the molecular and atomic level giving rise to consistent behavior predicted by the Periodic Table, I have no problem with that. The materials are produced in stars and they behave in ways assigned by universal forces that are the same everywhere. At the micro level, so far so good.
But it's what happens to those selections of matter at the macro level after they are formed that is my focus. How they interact, and what life forms they produce are influenced by environments that are more prone to variation.
Consider this:
The Dinosaurs were the most successful land species on Earth. They had existed the longest, in their time much longer than humans have. If an environmental disaster had not wiped them out 65-million years ago, and instead they had been able to go on developing, what might they look like today, and how might they have learned to behave? They might have become Earth's equivalent to humans. But conditions that favored them ended, and so did they.
Also they grew so big partly because they could ... the air back in their time did not contain the 21% of Oxygen that we have now. Instead it contained up to 33% Oxygen, enabling very big bodies to metabolize big food for big fuel.
Taking your own point, Oxygen does the same thing today that it did in Dinosaur times. But Oxygen was distributed differently then, and was accessible differently.
At one time there was no Oxygen in Earth's air and Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide dominated, favoring very different life forms ... Cyanobacteria, nothing like most species to day.
So the point I was making is that if random extinctions like the Asteroid impact that killed the Dinosaurs, and many other disasters before that had not happened, or had happened differently at different times than they did, then the progress of Evolution on Earth would have progressed differently.
It will have progressed differently on other planets too.
Some might have escaped Asteroid impacts altogether, or have no Moon to produce tides, or spin on a straight axis that produces no seasons to challenge life forms, or not spin at all and keep one side always to their sun, so that the only safe place to live is on the narrow band of twilight between eternal scorching day and eternal freezing night, so their sunlight never comes from overhead but only like a sunset. These and many other things produce different body features.
Between our lifeforms and theirs there would be certain similarities ... of course. But there would also be certain differences. It would be a mixture of similarities and differences.:) I think u misunderstood me. In cosmological term a Tyrannosaurus is very similar to a human being. I would say 80% of the metabolic processes are similar between a Tyrannosaurus and me, the Myth buster. We all have RNAs + DNAs we have similar amino acids. We breath air, we have lungs, we use oxygen + glucose to produce energy. Most likely our nervous systems generate electrical impulses by the same process. If life on other planets do not have DNA or RNA i will be very surprised.
|
|
“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”
Since: Jan 11
Port Willunga, Australia
|
Please wait...
Myth Buster wrote: <quoted text>
I think u misunderstood me.
In cosmological term a Tyrannosaurus is very similar to a human being.
I would say 80% of the metabolic processes are similar between a Tyrannosaurus and me, the Myth buster.
We all have RNAs + DNAs we have similar amino acids.
We breath air, we have lungs, we use oxygen + glucose to produce energy. Most likely our nervous systems generate electrical impulses by the same process.
If life on other planets do not have DNA or RNA i will be very surprised. In complex life forms some means of preserving reproductive code would be necessary. I agree that RNA and DNA do that job with proven efficiency on Earth, and some equivalent would be necessary wherever reproductive life exists. If it can occur differently I can't imagine how. After all, when we are talking DNA we are talking of events at and near the molecular level where the rules of micro Physics (Chemistry) are universal beyond Earth. That does not rule out some remarkable departures from 'life as we know it' though. Even on Earth we have 'extremophiles' that can thrive in environments lethal to us, such as boiling water or deep frozen ice, pure acid, and even deep within solid rock itself several kilometers down below Earth's surface. It seems that whatever is not clinically sterile harbors life of some sort. Life exploits whatever is available. Terrestrial life is mainly carbon based because carbon is readily available here. However investigators have pointed to the possibility of live evolving elsewhere based on Silicone, or even Aluminium-based life where Carbon is not available readily enough. It's not as far fetched as one might think. Here on Earth Silicone already plays a part in some life forms. Those very fine 'hairs' that protect some plants and break off as prickles in the skin when handled are actually glass, based on Silicone that plants have evolved to extract from the soil. And Aluminium is Earth's most abundant metal, so if our planet had not had such a ready supply of Carbon, evolving life might have turned to Aluminium instead for its organic base. Life forms based differently from ours chemically would enjoy a mixture of advantages and disadvantages compared with Terrestrial life. At the very least it would be different enough to seem exotic to us. Such creatures might still use DNA, but made of different elements. Therefore I doubt that our encounters with such life forms would lead to any shotgun weddings.:)
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Pisces
