Life On Other Planets. Claude's Rant

by 86 replies
107
I thought I would explain why life starting on other planets is dependent on more than the planet being in the habitable zone. We are very lucky in our solar system. There are three major influences in whether life can start. The Sun, the Planet itself, and the other planets.

The Sun involved.

Our Sun is not common. Only 7.5% of the stars we can find (a pretty representative sample) are like our Sun.

Most suns are Binary stars....even stars like ours. They have 2 or more suns revolving around a central shared point of gravity. Why is that bad? The orbiting planets wouldn't be damaged by the gravity, because all the planets would be revolving around the same central point in space. The damage would come from the dramatic differences in temperature and radiation coming from the suns. Imagine if our sun were suddenly twice as bright...twice as hot...then normal..then twice as hot...every few days..or every few hours. Binary stars do that. Would life be able to survive in any form? Probably not.

Some suns are much larger than ours. Why is that bad? Because they burn much hotter. But the worst part is that they burn much faster than ours. Maybe a few million years, and they explode, at least the outer layers. Not a way for life to start there.

Most stars are smaller brown stars...that we know of. They are hard to detect, so there are many more that we simply can't see. Why is a brown star bad for life? Because they may burn for a trillion years (Great!)...but they put out very little heat......and a lot of radiation (Bad).

Neutron stars, white dwarfs, pulsars...are all still stars, but they are throwing off unimaginable amounts of radiation. They effectively sterilize any planets in a small section of their galaxy....way beyond their own solar system.

So we have a boring stable yellow sun...that isn't a binary. Pretty rare in itself......


The planet itself;

The orbit. Our Earth is in a near perfect circular orbit around a very rare stable sun. The majority of planets are in elliptical orbits around their star (or group of stars). So there are wild fluctuations in temperature, enough to make any life impossible, at any point on the planet. It's not just being in the habitable zone. It has to be a steady orbit.

The size of the planet matters. If the planet is twice the mass of the Earth, the oceans (assuming there is water) will cover the entire planet, because mountains can't rise, and valleys are filled in. Life could still survive in the water, but there would be no land...no hands and feet...no tools...no technology. And the bigger the planet, the more it attracts meteors...the more water.

A planet half our size would end up like Mars. Not enough gravity to hold a thick enough atmosphere to retain heat, and water would evaporate into the atmosphere. Eventually being very dry. You need water to mix the ingredients to start life. Our planet has a strong magnetic core, because we have a very large iron core spinning in the center. Smaller planets cool much faster. No spinning iron core...no magnetic shield...deadly radiation bath every day. Not good.

The planet has to have the right amount of water. Our planet total water mass is just 1/4400 the total mass of the Earth. So, a very small specific amount. A perfect amount. Let's double that amount of water. Still just 1/2200 of the Earth's mass. Barely any more water at all. But the difference? 100% of the surface would be under water. No evolving hands, no technology. Life? Sure. Intelligent life? Sure. Life that can send a space craft or even a signal? No.

What if the amount of Earth's water was cut in half. Barely a difference......it would not be enough to collect in oceans. Raining and evaporation....no oceans for life to start and thrive.....not good.

If we had no moon? Or a much smaller moon? Our rotation would not be stable. Winter, Fall, Summer...all in a few days.... or Antarctica for 5 years, then the Amazon forest for 5 years. Plants and animals would never take hold.

The planet needs a rotation. Many planets and moons are tidally locked. that means the same side is always facing the Sun, or the planet. Why is that bad? Because the side always facing the Sun, melts, and the other side freezes. Even Mercury, so close to the sun that the only thing left is the Iron core....is freezing on the far side. Tidally locked. Bad.

Our other planets. Why are they important? Jupiter absorbed most of the early meteors from the Kuiper belt. If Jupiter and the other giant outer planets weren't there (edited), we could still be a molten planet because of all the surface strikes by meteors. The giant outer planets protect us from nearly all asteroids, comets, and meteors. A few still get through...and they occasionally cause extinctions. But it would happen far more often, if not for the outer planets.

So, the planet has to be very very specific for life. Differences in temperature from freezing to 160 degrees is nothing. Most planets are either burning, or in perpetual freezing. Not winter like freezing. Like liquid Nitrogen freezing.

Why am I mentioning these things? Because if any one of these conditions exist on the planet or it's star...life doesn't start.

And that already taking into consideration that the elements for life would be equally distributed across the universe.

Just thoughts. And as was brought up before (not by me) that two civilizations would have to be technologically active at the same time for a visit. Probably very rare by itself.

I had to look up the percentage of water making up the Earth, and the percentages of different types of stars. Most of it is from memory. A mistake or two may happen. But only one of these conditions needs to exist to stop life from forming.

We are very, very, very, very, lucky to have this planet, in this solar system.
#off topic forum
  • Not much of a rant! Very eloquently put!

    Steve
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
  • Banned
    I like this one...Suppose Earth is at 6 o'clock and Jupiter is on the opposite side of the sun, ie. 12 o'clock.
    How is Jupiter going to shield the earth from a meteor, approaching from 6 o'clock? And how often is Jupiter aligned with Earth, so that it could shield it? 1% of the time, 10%?

    Edit: OK, it doesn't have to be aligned. It takes time for a meteor to travel from Jupiter's orbit to earth, but you get the point. Once the meteor has crossed Jupiter's orbit, while Jupiter wasn't there, there's not much a planet, no matter how big, can do about it. A computer simulation would be pretty interesting. I'll get on it.

    But meanwhile... Let's say 12 meteors are approaching from different directions (from 1 o'clock, 2, 3, etc) and about to pass Jupiter's orbit at the same time (unlikely and probably impossible event). Jupiter is at 12 o'clock. Which of the 12 meteors is it going to stop or divert? And if it diverts one, then why does it always divert objects away from Earth and not the other way round. See an asteroid would have missed the Earth, but the gravity of damned Jupiter made it change the course, towards the Earth. Unlikely?

    I might be wrong. Explain me how Jupiter can shield the Earth from asteroids coming from every possible direction, while it can only be in one place at the same time, on it's 12 year orbit around the Sun.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [3] replies
    • I suspect that was just a valid example. There are the 5 planets, venus, mars, saturn, uranus, neptune, and their moons, and our moon. Pluto and mercury likely don't affect things too much, and pluto is no longer considered a planet. We HAVE had debris hit earth, but it hasn't been nearly as much as it COULD have been. ALSO, the other planets do NOT have to be NEAR the debris to keep it from hitting the earth. They could perhaps be HUNDREDS of thousands of miles away! They slow down debris, and may divert it. Of course, if some debris DOES get away, it is likely relatively small, because bigger things are more likely to be diverted, and must go through that air and all. Sometimes they destroy a LOT of vegetation and the like on the earth, but the earth itself is still here, and creatures tend to be outside of the blast and survive. ONE hit by some of the larger things seen could maybe have killed everything on the planet.

      Steve
    • Good question. When I said "Jupiter", I should have said "All the giant outer planets".

      Jupiter is just the largest, but Uranus, Saturn, and Neptune are also giants that help. And the orbits are almost never even on the same orbital hemisphere. We are really lucky in that way too.

      As far as your example of twelve meteors? I have no real idea. That's complex math that I'm not good at.

      I do know that meteors get most of their speed as they circle around the Sun. (or fly into the Sun) At the orbit of the outer giant planets. They aren't going very fast. It may take hundreds...or even thousands of years to make the trip to the inner planets. Plenty of time for one of the giants to stop or redirect an asteroid. By the time they hit us, they have gained quite a lot of speed because of the Sun's pull.

      I just go by what I hear astronomers and astrophysicists say, and their reasoning.
      • [1] reply
    • Very well said, Claude, and pretty accurate.

      Let me add something else to "the Planet itself" part that Claude mentioned.

      Your "planet" could have everything else perfect but if it has no magnetic field there will be no, or very limited evolutionary development.

      The solar winds that would be deflected by a magnetic field would quickly blow away the atmosphere then evaporate all water, including ice. Any life that may have started would have little chance of further development.

      This scenario may have very well played out on Mars. To close to the sun. No, or very little magnetic field. Atmosphere, oceans and rivers blown away. Any microbial life that developed had little chance to evolve.

      Joe Mobley
  • [DELETED]
  • Pretty good post. Is there life somewhere beyond where we have the capacity to see? Probably. I've always figured in an infinite space that is continually growing that there is infinite life. Makes you wonder though when the conditions have to be near perfect in order to begin life. We are very very lucky indeed though
  • Claude - all very true. Life - at least as we know it, has to be rare. That doesn't rule out other equally advanced life elsewhere, though, even if not prevalent. I would find it more amazing if there weren't than if there were. We're an egocentric species. It's taken us a long time to even recognize other species on our own planet are capable of complex cognition or have similar emotional IQs.

    Nothing is impossible, though. Our very existence should be proof of that one.
    • [ 5 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Sal I get that idea. But the fact we are here simply means that the identical process we went through over 4.5 billion years...creates something like us. All we know is that if somewhere else in the universe there were an identical solar system, and the warm planet had an identical history as ours.......life would probably end up like us, or close.

      It doesn't mean nothing is impossible. Me winning an argument with you, is a perfect example. I submit it as proof that some things are impossible.


      • [2] replies
  • This could possibly sound very ignorant and uneducated (because it is)... But why does "life on other planets" have to adapt to life as we know it? We evolved to suit our environment, so you are right in the sense it may not be possible for us to sustain life as we know it elsewhere, however, I think it could be possible (in my opinion) for other forms of life to have adapted to the way their environment happens to be, and maybe they're in the same situation as us; stranded and clueless about other life.

    I may regret posting this.
    • [ 6 ] Thanks
    • [2] replies
    • Sal and Alast made very good points.

      In the argument regarding life on other planets, we (as a species) tend to be extremely limited in our thinking. We erroneously assume that other life forms in the universe must be similar to ours, in that they would also require water, a certain type of atmosphere, and the right mix of myriad other "ingredients" (for lack of a better word at the moment) for life to develop and thrive.

      I think it's highly unlikely that there isn't other highly intelligent life in a variety of forms elsewhere in the universe - forms that we haven't even considered or even begun to imagine.

      As humans, we have this tendency to anthropomorphize everything - including our perception of extraterrestrial life, and thus our parameters of what is necessary for it to exist are far too narrow. I understand that tendency because it enables us to make sense of things, but it's really rather silly considering our own ability for intelligent thinking.

      That's my 2 cents, anyway...
      • [ 5 ] Thanks
    • It's a good question. Life is adaptable. On Earth we have animals that require no light. That can live in solid methane...survive in acid pools.

      But they adapted to that . They developed specialized adaptations to survive.

      But they didn't originate with these adaptations. Life doesn't suddenly emerge as a complex organism with defenses. It's simple one celled organisms, and they are highly vulnerable.

      So if life is in a very hostile environment, a safe bet is that it was either transplanted there, or the environment changed slowly, and the organism adapted. Of course, all we have to go by is the nearly limitless fossil records of how life evolved here. And the knowledge of how to create the building blocks of life in a lab, and what is required.

      Of course, it may start somewhere else, in a different way, but we have no information to support that.


      I disagree. I think it's highly probable that we are unique. To not be unique there would have to been identical solar systems, with an identical history. Environment dictates biology.

      We may not be alone. But thinking there is someone else, on another planet, that looks like us, and could pass for one of us? I doubt it.

      But that's just an opinion based on what I have studied.

      By the way, I assumed you meant other humanoid life. If you mean we aren't unique..in that we are not alone as having life, then ignore what I have said. Or start by ignoring what I have said, and just have a sandwich.

      And if they are 100 light years away, isn't that kind of like being alone?


      That's very true. And that's why aliens always look humanoid. They always walk like us, have faces, arms, fingers....and that's an important clue that the story is not true. What if they looked like squid, or jellyfish, or worms, or living crystals? During the Cambrian Explosion (the first vast proliferation of life on Earth), Every creature looked like an alien.

      We have tried to create life in the lab. And based on what we know, it has a pretty fixed formula for life to start. That doesn't mean it's the only way. But we have to base our theories on something.

      It's poetic to say "Everything is possible". But then there is no structure to build knowledge on. No basis for learning.

      Anyway, just a thought.
  • You're, again, presuming things based on your (or our) very limited understanding. What is "hostile" to us may be completely natural on another planet, in which life had adapted to. Life could adapt to blistering heat, or freezing cold, and from that perspective, is very natural.

    We also have no conclusive evidence to deny that, either. It seems plausible that we simply are not the only "life" to exist in the universe, which is expanding exponentially - and we will probably never uncover the true mysteries of the universe. I don't think anyone can begin to perceive what may be out there, but you can't just "dismiss" the possibility because it defies what we are accustomed to on earth.

    (again - I may regret posting this; I am more than happy to be proven wrong)
    • [1] reply

    • It sounds reasonable. But we were not talking about life adapting. We were talking about life beginning. Whatever is on another planet is natural to that planet.

      But as far as we know, you need liquid water, a short temperature range, light, and the right chemical stew. I'm not saying it's impossible on other worlds.

      And life could begin under other conditions possibly. But scientists are unaware of any other conditions life could start in. Again, we can only speculate based on what we know.

      Of course, we are basing this on our limited understanding. What else would we base it on? We cannot base an idea on things we are unaware of.
  • There are an estimated 10 to the 11th or 10 to the 12th stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. Using the lower end of that, we're looking at 100,000,000,000 just in our little neck of the woods.

    There are an estimated 10 to the 11th or 10 to the 12th galaxies in the observable Universe. So, again on the lower end and assuming the Milky Way is average in composition, we're looking at 10 to the 22nd (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars.

    Assuming Greg's 1 in 500 billion is accurate (very unlikely, but let's go with it) that means he'd expect to find 20,000,000,000 (20 billion) planets in the observable Universe that hosted life. And that's going with the low end of the estimates of stars. It could be 2 orders of magnitude greater than that.

    For those unfamiliar with the term, every 0 added to the end is an order of magnitude. So yeah, it could be 100 times that.


    Paul
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 - now there's a number you don't see very often!
  • Her's another theory to consider.

    It's been speculated that the building blocks that contributed to the first single-celled organisms came in on comets. How did they get there?

    If they developed on said comets, the conditions for those building blocks is independent of planetary environments, and could potentially develop in any solar system with similar ratios of chemicals and an Oort cloud.

    The odds of one of those comets hitting a planet during a period when there was enough water to begin the process are much better than the same thing happening spontaneously.

    If they didn't develop in the Oort cloud, where did they come from?

    This is where it gets interesting. One suggested scenario is that when a star goes supernova and is orbited by a life-bearing planet, some of the most basic building blocks survive in the form of protein strands, which are carried through the Universe by the impetus of the luminal pressure caused by the explosion.

    Some of that matter would eventually find itself pulled in by solar systems and then planetary bodies, and some would be swept up by comets.

    Again in theory, life would be expected to have developed first in the oldest systems. As their stars went nova, more of that matter would be spread, and would eventually, by simple gravity, end up in lots and lots of other systems.

    In this scenario, the basic building blocks would be the same across many systems, and could result in life forms with similar chemistry across vast stretches of space.

    Given this possible manner of distribution, the likelihood of life as we know it existing on other planets is not merely a matter of random generation. It's a function of seeding.


    Paul
    • [ 4 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • In order for it to have seeded and evolved in a similar fashion to the way it did on Earth though, those seeds would need to have been deposited on a similar planet to Earth. Similar in chemical makeup, magnetic field, gravitational pull, similar levels of heat and light from its nearest star, etc., etc..

      The chances of another planet almost the same as Earth in all of those things, is (pun intended) astronomical.

      However, it doesn't discount the possibility of seeds landing on a completely different planet type and evolving in a manner which we (for the time being at least) can't possibly comprehend.

      The truth is out there, but we aren't, and may never be clever enough to figure it out.

      I'm not sure if anything above makes any sense, if it doesn't let's just call it "Whateverpedia's rant".
  • WP,That's not at all unlikely, given the massive amount of the material that would be generated and the spread and force of the explosion(s).

    For all we know, it could be constantly raining tiny amounts of all sorts of potentially genetic material from all sorts of life forms throughout trillions of star systems. So, it would be a matter of which batch hit when a planet was "ripe" for it, rather than if it happened at all.

    That's assuming the theory has any validity, which I tend to think it does, but wouldn't assert as fact. If the building blocks formed in the Oort cloud, though, life is probably much more common than even Greg's estimate.

    Claiming that life, even as we know it, is unique to Earth is to claim nothing more than one's ignorance of the sheer size of the Universe.


    Paul
    • [2] replies
    • It makes as much sense to me as the "claim" that every snowflake is different to every other snowflake.

      I'd imagine that in an average snowstorm there are a comparable number of snowflakes as there are stars, planets and other bits and pieces in the universe.

      If we accept that every snowflake is different to every other one (and I do), why can't we accept that every planet out there is a unique entity.

      If there's a planet out there that is 99.9% the same as Earth and it got hit by exactly the same seeds as those that hit the Earth, life (if it developed) would still be a lot different to anything that we understand.
    • Paul; Nobody is making that claim. My entire post at the beginning was to try to show that the conditions to support life are rarer than most assume. And intelligent life, with technology...is probably extremely rare. In fact, in our galaxy, it's possible that right now, we are the only planet with intelligent life and the technology to travel and communicate to other planets.

      As for DNA traveling on comets.....I can't think of a reason that would be impossible.

      And you are talking about hundreds of billions of galaxies. Since it's almost certain that nobody will ever travel, or even be aware of anyone in another galaxy...ever....it's kind of a moot point to argue about the universe.

      But out of 200-300 billion stars? It's possible we are the current sole humanoids life with technology capable of contacting others on different plants. I didn't say likely. But it's possible.
  • Here's yet another thought. This one just occurred to me, and may be full of gaping biochemical holes. Still, it will make the point.

    Suppose there's a nebula in which the conditions and chemistry are such that the basic chemicals that life here formed around are commonly created. With a sun at its center, the luminal pressure could cause the cloud to constantly shed this material, sending it outward in massive volumes and in all directions.

    The idea is simply that there are too many possible processes we haven't considered to treat the assumption that life appeared here as a spontaneous and non-repeatable accident as a given.


    Paul
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Paul; We don't know that it's spontaneous. We don't know that it's not repeatable. It's just rare. ...because we now know what the majority of other stars are like, and they won't support life.

      Nebula are the size of galaxies. They may house millions of suns. They are essentially galaxies that haven't started taking shape. They may be a million light years across.

      That doesn't really nullify your idea.


      This whole thing started because it's a common belief here that space ships come to Earth. My attempt was to show that his is unlikely because of the difficulty finding a suitable planet, with a suitable Sun...from which these aliens could come.

      And some of the rationale proposed, baked my rational brain.

      That's really all. The idea that intelligent life does not exist anywhere else in the universe isn't something anyone said. There is simply no way to know....possibly as long as we are on this planet.
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • WP,I find that unlikely.

    An average snowflake weighs around 3 milligrams, or .003 grams. Multiply that by the number of stars in the Universe (lower estimate, again), and you get 30,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms.

    That would require the storm you postulate to contain more than 20% of the Earth's atmospheric moisture.

    I also don't believe the "No two snowflakes are ever alike" thing, but that's a different argument.

    Also a bad analogy, as they don't have to be identical to share things in common, like temperature, density, and elemental nature. Similarly, two planets would not need to be identical to support life, even limiting it to life as we know it. They would need to share certain conditions, but there are lots of factors that could influence those conditions.

    And life doesn't always have to be "as we know it."Oh? Why?

    It could be very different if both planets were identical, and very similar if they were somewhat different.


    Paul
    • [2] replies
    • Life could be very different on two identical planets. But on two planets that are just a little different? Life would be very different. In which way? I don't know.
      But if Earth had less water, more water, was hotter, colder, had no moon, had no large planets to shield against asteroids...
      If the Cambrian explosion didn't end in mass extinctions...if land didn't appear, plants didn't evolve before animals....the meteor didn't kill the dinosaurs, one of the ice ages was more severe....you can come up with lots of ways, just in the history of the planet, that life would be completely different. It might still survive, but we wouldn't be looking through a telescope.

      So if the planet star or solar system is different in just about any way...life would be different. In other words...no little green men, with saucer shaped ships...probing us and kissing our women.


      Sorry. I tend to talk in declarative sentences. I'm basing my opinions on real science. But it's just opinion. And some of it is just extrapolating probabilities.....so I could be wrong.
    • Given that we don't fully understand everything about life on our own planet, it's not hard to believe we wouldn't understand life that developed on another planet, no matter how similar the planet or the life that evolved on it is.
  • Claude,You weren't. See the other thread on this... Possible? Absolutely. I find it less than likely, but my reasoning is theoretical, so I wouldn't argue that.


    Paul
  • Claude,Almost certainly so. I'd say one in 500 billion was pretty rare, and that would still yield 20 billion planets with life on them.Indeed.

    I find it likely there are starfaring races out there, but I doubt they'd bother with us even if they knew we were here.

    In order to get beyond their own solar systems, they'd need to make it past the point where they had decided to use their growing available energy sources for constructive purposes, or they'd have destroyed themselves.

    Any such mature race would take one look at a planet with weapons pointing in toward itself and head off in the other direction.


    Paul
  • Claude,If the chemical bases were similar, that's not a given.

    At any rate, as you suggest, life on this planet has enough variety to make that point moot, and it's not just "similar." It's the same.

    I'm talking about general metabolic systems, not appearance or environmental adaptations.


    Paul
    • [1] reply

    • And I was talking about generating humans again. So, I guess we ...agree?
  • Not necessarily.We only need to understand that a given set of chemicals will react in certain ways under certain conditions, and some external conditions won't have any effect at all.

    Biochemically, life organizes itself according to certain principles that are based on fundamental molecular properties.

    Out of 20 billion chances, sure. We could end up with humans. Or flying dolphins. Or real unicorns. Or hexapedal reptilians with advanced consciousness and opposable claws. Or all of them on the same planet.

    The odds that we'd end up with humans are very small. But I never said humans. I occasionally said "life as we know it," which means carbon-based and oxygen-breathing.


    Paul
    • [2] replies
    • What, no fluffy bunnies?
      • [2] replies
    • I know. And it's my point. The metabolism may be universal, meaning that all life, everywhere may be based on the same metabolism (who knows).

      But generating anything that looks like a human, like in UFO videos, is a different story.

      We are agreeing, whether you like it or not!
  • Banned
    You exist, therefore it's possible anything else can exist, things you can't comprehend.






    Classic Movie Line #15 - YouTube
  • Banned
    I'd settle for a life on this one.
  • I have a couple of thoughts regarding life and our place in the universe...

    1. If something ever does come into contact with us, meaning they have the technological capabilities of traveling to earth, then you can pretty much guarantee that we're all dead. Or made into slaves. Seeing what humans do on a daily basis gives me no hope that as another civilization's technology advances their ability to harm doesn't as well. Unless of course they are nothing like us and actually believe in working as a whole, not a bunch of trigger happy factions. I could only hope that since their understanding of science is at such a level to allow intergalatic travel, they would have realized that killing serves no purpose.

    2. Who is to say that carbon based life is the only way life is possible? For all we know there could be crystalized beings out there thinking the same way we do. That might sound completely crazy, but think about how we got here... 4.6 billion years of evolution. Combine time and elements and crazy things can happen!

    3. I find it completely impossible that we are the ONLY lifeforms found throughout the universe. After all, it's a really, really, really, really, really big place. If the universe truly is infinite, then the numbers are INFINITELY against those that claim we're alone. It's almost absurd for us as humans, as smart as we are, to say that there's nothing out there when we haven't even gotten off of the very planet we were created on.

    With all that in mind, I wouldn't be opposed to some other life form or being to come and make a guest appearance here. I have no faith that the human race will ever colonize on other planets. We're already destroying our only home we've ever known way faster than it can repair itself. So as sad as this sounds, I don't think we're going to make it much longer. (Now when I say longer I don't mean like 100 years. Maybe we'll last 1000, but even that isn't really long on a universal scale.) In my opinion our only hope is technology. But the irony there is that when our technology expands so does our dependence on natural, finite resources.

    Just my two cents! I probably sound like some doomsday prepper, but I actually really enjoy life and love learning about science and wondering about the bigger picture that is our universal backyard.
  • Banned
    I think aliens are not getting in contact with us for the same reason we are not trying to contact ants or bees. Those are intelligent beings, but it doesn't occur to us to take a form of a bee and infiltrate their hive to make a contact. We do observe and research them though.

    Perhaps aliens are trying to contact to us using telepathy, but they only hear us making some noise coming from out mouth, which to them mean nothing, just like sounds made by dogs, cats etc, mean nothing to us.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [3] replies
    • I would have thought outside your hobby of trying badly to converse with fellow humans, making contact with ants and bee's would have been pretty high up your list of things to do on a daily basis.

      • [ 5 ] Thanks
      • [2] replies
    • If there are beings that can travel a galaxy....

      That's a pretty good point.
    • You're not an animal lover, are you?

      The sounds made by my dogs and cats certainly meant something to me!

      My kitties had certain sounds that meant different things like Lay off, I'm not in the mood to play right now!

      And, I love when you scratch between my ears!

      As well as, Dang! There's a squirrel on the window ledge and I want to get it so bad, but I'm stuck inside behind this clear barrier!

      As well as, Hey, it's 3 O'clock right now and you usually feed me at two! What the heck are you doing that is more important than putting food in my dish and milk in my platter?

      As for my dogs, they had sounds I understood as well, but I think I've made my point well enough.


      Terra
      • [ 2 ] Thanks
      • [2] replies
  • Claude Witacrepedia, do you think it's a coincidence that every other planet in the solar system could fit in between the earth and the moon?



    Here's what makes that even more interesting ... planets aren't perfect spheres and wobble on their axis, so whether they "fit" or not depends on the angle of the planet at that moment. If we use polar north there's room to spare, use the equators and they don't fit, which means at some point every year they would all be at the right angles to be the EXACT distance.
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Ron; I've seen that before, and tried to figure out if it has mathematical significance. I couldn't find any. I think it's a mathematical coincidence. If it were significant, I think we would find these types of measurements in other places in the solar system. Like "If you take the mass of every moon in the solar system, it equals the mass of our largest planet. And it's exactly half the mass of our second largest planet". Something like that.


      It's the same with the Moon almost perfectly covering the Sun in a solar eclipse. The moon is slowly spiraling away from us, so we are just seeing it when it happens to be the right distance for this effect. And right now, it's at the distance where the planets kind of fit in the orbit.

      "Claude Witacrepedia". That's pretty good.

      And the Batman VS Superman teaser will be shown with the last Hobbit movie in December. I can't wait for both.

      Batman VS Superman! In a live action movie! It doesn't get better than that.


      Added later; I also noticed that this measurement doesn't work, if you include the planet's moons, Pluto, or if you even include Earth as a planet. That also leads me to think that the measurement is not indicative of anything, oter than a cool coincidence.
      • [2] replies
  • There may not be life on some planets that are capable of support yet, but later there may be. And in 15 billion years, this may be an old event that happened long ago on some planets..............

    We are looking for water out there right now. We've had our equipment land on another planet - and 3 other bodies in space - moon, comet, Mars (am I missing any?). That equipment was not sterilized before take off. What did we send in the way of microbes to those bodies? What if there is water there? What if we sent anaerobic microbes that don't really take to oxygen but like whatever the atmospheric composure is where we sent the equipment?

    It took what - 4 or five billion years for us to develop (and over-populate). So that means there has been around 5 or 6 billion years before us for equal time for life to develop anywhere there was the right mix of material and a sustainable atmosphere.

    Scientists are starting to agree (publicly - they might have always thought so and said nothing or had the knowledge suppressed) DNA is not a complex that could have developed on this planet. It landed here some way or another - just as life from this planet is now being spread around. Of course, it's a limited spread right now - but we're on a comet now. What if that equipment finds itself bounced to another planet?

    What I'm getting at is that it wouldn't take very many planets with technologically intelligent life to seed a lot of planets that would be conducive to supporting life, even if it had not developed there in the first place. Life on earth multiplies virally - and we're spreading it around, meaning we might end up changing a lot of planets.

    How long until we send equipment to a few of the moons of jupiter that might be able to sustain those microbes? (yeah, I know, our sun's gonna burn out by the time they develop very far - but what if something similar happens in a solar system with a new star?)

    When you are thinking of this stuff - remember that several million year old bacteria that were encased in some sort of halite have been resuscitated. They actually survived that long due to the casing and suspended animation.
    • [1] reply
    • I'm not sure why you are saying that. DNA could have evolved from RNA. (And that's about all I know about THAT). It had to have evolved from something...someplace. What is it about Earth that prevented it from forming here?

      Even if it came to Earth on an asteroid...it had to develop somewhere. Why is this planet excluded from that?

      Here's an article from Berkley about the evolution of DNA.

      Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life


      Added after I read Paul's post after this one;

      And...like Paul will say in a couple of posts, this is the only place I've heard that said.
  • Sal,What scientists? I've never heard that argued anywhere.


    Paul
    • [1] reply
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed

  • 107

    Life On Other Planets. Claude's Rant

    I thought I would explain why life starting on other planets is dependent on more than the planet being in the habitable zone. We are very lucky in our solar system. There are three major influences in whether life can start. The Sun, the Planet itself, and the other planets. The Sun involved.