Alien life right here at home...

[LogGrad98]

The latest I read states that while a geomagnetic reversal could lower the Earth's magnetic field (slightly increasing radiation), there is not a direct correlation to geomagnetic reversals and weather pattern shifts.

And I don't know that being in the Goldilocks zone is improbable with 20 billion planets in our own galaxy that are also in the habitable zone. I even read recently that there are two Earth sized (actually larger but similar) plants in the same solar system in the habitable zone. And they are close enough that if you are standing on one you can see the other (as we see the Moon). Pretty cool.

Are they binary?

 

[JAZZGASM]

Are they binary?

Yes, they are binary companions.

 

[LogGrad98]

Yes, they are binary companions.

Great fodder for sci fi stories that.

 

[Hotdog]

Well, water in our solar system, and not frozen either. I thought this was interesting:

https://gizmodo.com/wet-dwarf-astro...our-asteroid-belt-1506837506/@andrewtarantola



As it is a widely held belief that liquid water is the most likely way life can develop, does that mean there might be life of some sort out there? Do you think that life exists elsewhere? Would bacteria or other microorganisms count as life?

I am a life-long sci-fi fan and as such I love to think about this kind of stuff. I like to think that us being absolutely alone in the universe is the remote possibility and that really the universe is teeming with life. Along those lines, what are your thoughts on the anthropic principle? I tend to side with the strong anthropic principle.

I dont think its a huge surprise to find water on that asteroid/planet. Its relatively close to us. So the elements should be the same. I believe their is water everywhere in the universe though. It still hasnt been ruled out that Mars has some water on it under the surcace. That wouldn't surprise me either.

I think we all instinctively know that water is the key to life.

So the probability is pretty high that life is out there condidering that the Universe is probably infinite. In fact, intelligent life might just be light years ahead of us in terms of technology and intelligence. Maybe we are out in the boonies in terms of the Universe. We may not have life anywhere near us, but maybe its abundant in some far off place. And real life Star Wars happen all the time. And our message that we sent out years ago is going to reach some space thugs and they are coming to kill us.

 

[franklin]

It is possible that life has occurred elsewhere with far different chemistry than our own. On our own planet we know that organism grow and thrive at and inside the openings of volcanic vents on the ocean floor in environments far closer to that on say Venus than elsewhere on Earth. I think we are underestimating the possibilities if we limit them to just what we would recognize as "life". I also think it is possible that life can exist in forms we cannot comprehend, or at least would not see as a life form.

Another question, how would the discovery that bacteria exists and has evolved completely separate from that on earth (so it wasn't a fluke asteroid striking the planet when there was nothing but bacteria here and some of it ended up by chance on a water covered body) on Europa or Titan or another moon or body in our solar system sway your thoughts about extraterrestrial life?

I think we comprehend life just fine. Laws of physics pretty much guarantee that alternative life forms do not exist in non-carbon or hypothetically silicone based forms. If this weren't true then we'd have The Thing jumping out of caves to scare little children.

As far as bacteria goes, that's about as lively as prions or viruses IMO. There's more to "life" than chemistry reacting like a well orchestrated symphony to external stimuli. Science needs to catch up to this.

 

[Hotdog]

I think we comprehend life just fine. Laws of physics pretty much guarantee that alternative life forms do not exist in non-carbon or hypothetically silicone based forms. If this weren't true then we'd have The Thing jumping out of caves to scare little children.

As far as bacteria goes, that's about as lively as prions or viruses IMO. There's more to "life" than chemistry reacting like a well orchestrated symphony to external stimuli. Science needs to catch up to this.

Eh..

How do we know what we dont know?

We dont have a complete understanding of the physics and chemistry around us. How can we be sure that we know whats going on trillions of light years away from?

I think his point stands. There is not telling just how weird it can get the further you get away. It might not just be replicas of what we see around us? This could just be one layer made out of totally different stuff than the next layer.
I think there is a correlation between the the term infinite and what it means to possibilities. If the universe is infinite then so may be the possibilities.

 

[franklin]

Eh..

How do we know what we dont know?

We dont have a complete understanding of the physics and chemistry around us. How can we be sure that we know whats going on trillions of light years away from?

I think his point stands. There is not telling just how weird it can get the further you get away. It might not just be replicas of what we see around us? This could just be one layer made out of totally different stuff than the next layer.
I think there is a correlation between the the term infinite and what it means to possibilities. If the universe is infinite then so may be the possibilities.

I suppose it's possible that well established physics are altered in ways we cannot comprehend when you get far out in space. You're talking about altering the structural makeup of elements and their electron clouds, which I find more than highly unlikely.

The fact that our very smartest have consistently been able to come up with calculations to explain away the previously unfathomed by using our science (as opposed to your unknown variables) wipes away all this mystery doubt to me.

 

[Hotdog]

I suppose it's possible that well established physics are altered in ways we cannot comprehend when you get far out in space. You're talking about altering the structural makeup of elements and their electron clouds, which I find more than highly unlikely.

The fact that our very smartest have consistently been able to come up with calculations to explain away the previously unfathomed by using our science (as opposed to your unknown variables) wipes away all this mystery doubt to me.

Ya. I see what you are saying.

Mathmatics is the language of the universe. Its hard to comprehend math being any different any where else. 1 object is 1 object, 2 is 2, and so on , and so on.

But I dont think we are done finding out more about math. I dont know if we ever will be. It might just be like peeling back the layers of an onion that never ends. Which brings us back to the term infinite and what it really means.

It appears to be the same thing when we study the small and just how small can you go. String theory, then what? On and on.

 

[franklin]

Ya. I see what you are saying.

Mathmatics is the language of the universe. Its hard to comprehend math being any different any where else. 1 object is 1 object, 2 is 2, and so on , and so on.

But I dont think we are done finding out more about math. I dont know if we ever will be. It might just be like peeling back the layers of an onion that never ends. Which brings us back to the term infinite and what it really means.

It appears to be the same thing when we study the small and just how small can you go. String theory, then what? On and on.

No doubt on the new discovery part. We will deepen our understandings of what we've already accumulated.

The criticism I have is taking a pre-1940ish heritage mindset (that ironically is born out of modern science proving old suspicions and wives tales wrong) that says we don't know because science. Does that make sense?

Modern science is quit refined but we are still living underneath the fragments of the folly mindset that existed pre-science. In other words, we are paranoid of new findings being hubris because they happened to often be so under the old, archaic pseudoscientific structure.


That's up The Babe's alley, I think.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think we comprehend life just fine. Laws of physics pretty much guarantee that alternative life forms do not exist in non-carbon or hypothetically silicone based forms. If this weren't true then we'd have The Thing jumping out of caves to scare little children.

As far as bacteria goes, that's about as lively as prions or viruses IMO. There's more to "life" than chemistry reacting like a well orchestrated symphony to external stimuli. Science needs to catch up to this.

Actually some of the theories I have seen explain this pretty well. We see the type of life that the environment here was capable of developing and sustaining. It is possible that life developed under far different circumstances and exists in environments we could not. So partly the anthropic principle again, that life developed here because this was an environment conducive to carbon-based life to develop. That isn't to say that some other type of life couldn't have developed in far different circumstances with far different properties, say with ammonia as a base medium instead of water on a planet cold enough to sustain liquid ammonia, but perhaps heated from within. It might even still be carbon-based, but without the water component, and it could represent a far different biosphere than we would think possible. I also am just not a fan of making blanket statements based on our knowledge of physics and science when it is obviously not really that far developed and saying definitively that something could or could not exist. It is fair to say that as far as we understand the laws of physics we cannot see a way that it could work. It does not preclude the possibility that we don't know everything and maybe it can, in a way that would teach us more about the science.

 

[LogGrad98]

No doubt on the new discovery part. We will deepen our understandings of what we've already accumulated.

The criticism I have is taking a pre-1940ish heritage mindset (that ironically is born out of modern science proving old suspicions and wives tales wrong) that says we don't know because science. Does that make sense?

Modern science is quit refined but we are still living underneath the fragments of the folly mindset that existed pre-science. In other words, we are paranoid of new findings being hubris because they happened to often be so under the old, archaic pseudoscientific structure.


That's up The Babe's alley, I think.

I posted my other post before I saw this one. I think you are right, but also think about the recent postulations by Hawking, that event horizons of black holes don't really exist. There is so much that is plainly obvious that we do not understand about the quantum nature of the universe that it is flat out silly, in the face of all we still cannot explain, to say that we have refined science to the point where anything new will just expand on what we already know. There are still areas where breakthroughs can and will occur, imo. I think both points of view can exist in harmony. Yes, taking the pre-1940's mindset to anything and everything scientific is one risk, but taking the polar opposite is another.

 

[addictionary]

I think there is a correlation between the the term infinite and what it means to possibilities. If the universe is infinite then so may be the possibilities.

What do you picture when you use the word "infinite"?

I dont think its a huge surprise to find water on that asteroid/planet. Its relatively close to us. So the elements should be the same.

The elemental similarity is understandable, but the asteroid having been told to have an atmosphere is the reason to the possible existence of water and that is far more important I think, considering its structure not being similar to the core based Earth structure to create an atmosphere.

You're talking about altering the structural makeup of elements and their electron clouds, which I find more than highly unlikely.

Isn't it possible to find new elements and new forms of existence as far as you sail away? Even considering the within the Earth's boundaries, we still come across amazing creatures that we could not even comprehend that they existed before the deeper we search the oceans. No elemental critical difference, just a great deal of difference in the conditions, pressure, heat etc. God knows (or Science knows if you will) what we would contact if we successed at reaching Andromeda in one piece and undamaged conscience before we crash.

The fact that our very smartest have consistently been able to come up with calculations to explain away the previously unfathomed by using our science (as opposed to your unknown variables) wipes away all this mystery doubt to me.

Dramatic shifts in paradigms won't occur as sharp as the ones that had been experienced entering the empirical methodology's world from false beliefs that explained the universe. But that shouldn't keep us away from thinking that any truth we know may change someday regardless of the validity of their current states.