Nasa press release!!

[TheAstroGuy]

Nasa is about to make a press release about "possibly some biological discovery" is this an introduction to the discovery of what we all know to be true, LIFE EXISTS OUT THERE :)

My guess is they've discovered some form of microbiology on a saturniun moon??

The announcment will be live on NASA TV early Friday morning Dec 3rd.

Yee haa

Regards

Shane

[Ric]

Sounds like an interesting release Shane. I'll have to watch out for that one.

Cheers

[ballaratdragons]

I don't know it to be true.

Please don't speak for 'all'. ;)

[DarkRevenge]

Thanks for the heads up, Shane.
I'm wondering what they'll say...

Cheers, Luis.

[CraigS]

Here ya go …

NASA creates buzz with 'extraterrestrial' announcement. (http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-nasa-extraterrestrial.html)



Cheers

[DarkRevenge]

I totally agree with that, CraigS: "But when it is released, the paper will be a disappointment to those speculating about its contents".

[Waxing_Gibbous]

Seems to be this -http://http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Technology/2010/12/02/Hopes_rise_of_life_outside_earth_54 6637.html

Just to spoil it. It appears there are about 1/3 more red dwarves than thought. the logic being: Dwarves are old. More dwarves, more chance of life.
Not exactly LGMs floating in the Oort Cloud.

[ZeroID]

Hmmm, just read more about this 'announcement' and ( correct me if I'm wrong) it says they have found a microbe that lives in an arsenic rich environment in a thermal pool in USA. This microbe has substituted the essential phosphorous element with arsenic instead. The implication is that it makes life more likely to be seen in other hostile environments, opens the options up so to speak.

Living in arsenic ??!! Blimey !

[mswhin63]

I can see all these speculations just in this post, there is definately going to be some people disappointed by the announcment.

I remember the most recent announement was a let down for many news site speculating. I suppose that is the best way for their advertising money to used.

I wonder why very few people simply wait for the announcement. Nice to know about it.

[CraigS]

Hey Brent;

Not sure what you're quoting from there .. but even if they found life living in arsenic, I still don't think this alters the probability of life existing elsewhere.

It would alter where you'd look.

Interesting .. (here we go again ! :) )
Cheers

[ngcles]

Hi All,

If you are expecting an announcement of intelligent life somewhere out there, or even simple life on one of the moons of our solar-system I think you are going to be gravely disappointed.

I will be very, very surprised it it amounts to more than the discovery of another "extremeophile" found under a rock or at the bottom of a lake or something that will simply highlight the extraordinary diversity and adaptability of Earth-based life pointing to a higher probability that life in the Universe blah blah blah etc etc.

And no, I have no inside information.


Best,

Les D

[AstralTraveller]

ZeroID and Les are probably on the right track. One of the younger researchers at the announcement specialises in alternative biochemistries. See her CV at: http://www.ironlisa.com/cv/

Below is the abstract from a paper she lead-authored last year.

Did nature also choose arsenic?

Felisa Wolfe-Simon, Paul C.W. Davies and Ariel D. Anbar

Abstract


All known life requires phosphorus (P) in the form of inorganic phosphate (PO43− or Pi) and phosphate-containing organic molecules. Pi serves as the backbone of the nucleic acids that constitute genetic material and as the major repository of chemical energy for metabolism in polyphosphate bonds. Arsenic (As) lies directly below P on the periodic table and so the two elements share many chemical properties, although their chemistries are sufficiently dissimilar that As cannot directly replace P in modern biochemistry. Arsenic is toxic because As and P are similar enough that organisms attempt this substitution. We hypothesize that ancient biochemical systems, analogous to but distinct from those known today, could have utilized arsenate in the equivalent biological role as phosphate. Organisms utilizing such ‘weird life’ biochemical pathways may have supported a ‘shadow biosphere’ at the time of the origin and early evolution of life on Earth or on other planets. Such organisms may even persist on Earth today, undetected, in unusual niches.
(Received July 16 2008)
(Accepted September 26 2008)
(Online publication January 30 2009)

[TheAstroGuy]

We surely all live in hope that perhaps it won't be just another Microbe discovery etc etc, call me an optimist i like to think positive thoughts always and dream perhaps.

I may not speak for "All" but surely Astronomically minded people knowing the vast distances between the stars and the sheer amount of them out there would have to conclude that mathematically it is ridiculous to consider life does not exist in some form even if it is the simplest form.

Let's hope NASA has something interesting to say tomorrow morning.

Regards

Shane

[erick]

Did all the other chemists shudder! See attached for correction.

Even Microsoft Word cannot get the correct text (subscripts and superscripts not withstanding) without some add-on, I expect?

[OICURMT]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334628/Astrobiology-findings-Alien-bacteria-lives-arsenic-Californian-lake-opens-search-life-planets.html

[Mariposa]

It seems to be something big, the fact the they gave so little detail makes me more curious about the announcement. Lets just sit and wait...

[ngcles]

Hi Shane & All,



Live on in hope then by all means but you are about to be disappointed I think.



I tend to approach this question in a factual, non-emotional way. If we're not alone in the Universe so far as intelligent life goes, I'm completely fine with that. On the other hand, if we are alone I am completely fine with that too. It does not affect me in an emotional way at all.

Mine is only one person's opinion (and without empirical evidence all that remains are intelligent guesses and speculation), but I think life is pretty rare in the Universe, while intelligent life (especially space-faring races) is extraordinarily rare -- possibly singular. I think in our galaxy the number of civiilisations is likely to be <10 with the smallest single digit numbers the most likely. 1 only (counting us) is actually quite likely. I know people will say that that'd be a shame if true and awful news, but personally I can't understand why.

I'd suggest if you are interested in the subject (who here isn't), have a gander at "The Rare Earth Hypothesis" by Ward and Brownlee. Excellent reading.


Best,

Les D

[CraigS]

Or as Bojan just posted on the 'Trillions of Earths' (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=662351#post662351) thread:
The Fermi Paradox. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox)
… it seems to cover all bases, including the Rare Earth Hypothesis.

Cheers

[Waxing_Gibbous]

The mathematical probability of life existing elsewhere is based on a logical fallacy: That because life, intelligent or otherwise, exists here, it MUST exist elsewhere. Yet there is no proof of this, and indeed the opposite is true. Even the oft-quoted aphorism that "anything not forbidden is compulsory", fails to take into account that it need not be compulsory more than once!
As to Conan the Bacterium and his friends: all extremeophiles on earth evolved from earlier organisms which began in much less hostile environments. That doesn't mean that similar organisms have NOT evolved on other planets, in similarly unpleasant circumstances, it just means that its a bad idea to suppose that it HAS evolved.

[supernova1965]

I think that you can also say that for intellegent life not to exist saying that Earth and only Earth in the universe holds life of any type is simply impossible for me to believe. When and
How can we seriously believe that in all those planets we are the only ones out there its like saying if we see a single ant on an ant hill that it is the only one there. Very difficult for me to believe about the ants or the possibility of life out there somewhere.



(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_known_planets_are_in_the_u niverse#ixzz16wU6UfWx)

[Jeeps]

Ok, i'll let the cat out of the bag...

Nasa has discovered not only that there is life in a neighbouring star system, but that they have pizza too ;) :rofl: :D :P

[supernova1965]

I am at present watching Planet 51 has anyone else seen this movie so far I am loving it very funny and well worth watching. It is about mankind landing on another planet with life and what happens to the astronaut.:rofl:. He has only just landed where I am in the movie so please no spoilers.:thumbsup:

[blindman]

Come on guys,
this is just to fog Assange problem.........

[Jen]

Will be interesting to hear what they have to say either way :P Nothing like a good storey to keep us amused while all this crap weather is going on :rolleyes:;)

[ngcles]

Hi Warren & All,



Yes, I know the numbers of stars out there are staggering but similarly, a fantastically vast majority of them absolutely cannot host advanced life or are at least exceptionally unsuited to host advanced life (by that I mean "people" -- not microbes). Either they have too much mass and burn too quickly, or not enough and are too feeble, are variable, are x-ray producers, in binary star systems, have metallicity that is too low, are in the wrong spot in a galaxy, have the wrong sort of orbit around the centre of the galaxy, or are simply in the wrong sort of galaxy.

Then (on top of that) you have to have the right planet with the corrrect constituents, the correct mass, plate tectonics, a large moon, the right obliquity, right magnetic field strength, the right siblings at the right places within the system (for very long, stable periods), at the right distance from the host star -- and a huge host of other things come into play as well. The things that count against a star hosting a planet that actually has advanced intelligent life are truly vast. Just because microbes are found does not by any stretch of the imagination imply there are (or indeed one day "will") be "people". The pitfalls that are capable of sterilising a complete planet that has made a start down the biosphere-track are also very significant, if not statistically quite probable when viewed on long timescales. Remember, humans, as a advanced, intelligent creatures occupy an incredibly tiny fraction of the time-line of Earth. Indeed for the first 80% of the timeline, there was no such thing as multi-cellular life here. It took 4.6 billion years before we (people) arrived and if you listen to the biologists, humans (as a "design") should never have succeeded. The fact we did make it to where we are now is almost a freak chance -- a statistical abberration; and that on top of all the other unlikely outcomes.

When you say that it's " ... impossible for me to belive ...", now answer honestly, is that because you really want to believe the contrary? Any belief based on a desire will have a significant impact on a person's opinion. It's very easy to see an ultra large number of stars out there and say "Gee there must be someone else out there". But there are at least an equally fantastic number of things that go into making the right star, in the right spot, within the right galaxy etc etc. Really, they are quite vast and there is a significant probability that we as humans are alone in the galaxy (at this time at least) and maybe, in the Universe.

I think the Drake equation (for all the fame that attaches to it) is a massive oversimplification of the factors that go into producing an environment suitable for intelligent life or predicting the number of Earth-like planets in the Milky Way.

But as I said ... its only an opinion. And I guess until there is empirical evidence proving the issue one way or t'other, it's all just intelligent guesses and statistical arguments.

As I said before, I'd suggest if you are interested in the subject; "The Rare Earth Hypothesis" by Ward and Brownlee (who are real and highly regarded scientists) is a proper eye-opener on what it takes to go from a nebula to intelligent beings who can mix concrete and sign complicated insurance forms.



Best,

Les D

[mswhin63]

Les, I think you have a point, we make a lot of assumptions and generalisations based on earth observation but until we can get real data from let say Titan or some other object then the assumptions will remain assumptions.

If we find any sort of life on another planet or moons in our own solar system then we can re-write the math for assumptions. So far all we can find it the potential for life to exist in extremes.

Personally I believe that there is life including intelligent, but I am not about to make assumptions of how it exist where and how much. It is though an enjoyable pursuit to watch including earth based experiements and observations.

[Tandum]

Time is the leveler. This planet has been here what, 43 million years. We have been here about .4 million years. This planet has uranium and other heavy metals which can only be produced in a super nova. So second or maybe third time round at least means possibly 200 million years. Or is it longer, 600 million years maybe? When was the big bang? Ahh, 13 billion years ago ......

I think it's it's not if there is life out there, it's when...

[DarkRevenge]

Seems to be starting: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

Cheers, Luis.

[CraigS]

Nasa article here. (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/dec/HQ_10-320_Toxic_Life.html)

I don't see that this announcement adds any weight one way or the other to the possibility of life existing elsewhere. What it impacts is the question of where to search for it …. and there are zillions of place left !! ;)

The main purpose of the announcement was:



Its for the researchers.

Cheers

[supernova1965]

Yes I can honestly say that, what I want to believe is neither here nor there I base my opinion on science and science points more to there having to be life out there rather than there being none. Your quote above really helps my argument the more possibilities out there only increase the chances not decrease them. I mean it was common thought that the Earth was flat and that Earth was the center of everything. I think that the claim that there is no life is more improbable than saying that it exists using the sheer number of chances that exist for other planets to be in the right place and have the necessary conditions that is why I believe that it is more and not less likely. Its like the if you buy 1 scratchit ticket your chances of buying the big winner is very small but if you could buy them all hypothetically speaking your chances skyrocket.

[CraigS]

Warren;

Science and mathematics can say nothing in favour of one perspective over the other.

There simply isn't enough data to create a significant sample instance to draw from. One needs to look at the probability of creating life, from scratch, and then look at the numbers of planets which may be out there to support it, in order to balance the equation. I mean, the chances of creating life from scratch are also astronomical. You may need squillions of planets for it to occur from scratch .. and ours may be the one and only instance of it!

Then again, it might not be the one and only instance of it.

Once an instance of exo-life IS discovered, then statistically, things change but until that happens, its a matter of personal taste and gut-feel.

Acknowledgement of it all being driven by gut-feel is a good place to start a conversation from.

Cheers

[irwjager]

There's quite a few problems with the Rare Earth Hypothesis and I wouldn't recommend it as a place to start if you're interested in the subject of extra terrestrial life & intelligence. It hardly suffices as an encompassing overview of the state of the art (CraigS' link to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox) is a far better way to get started).

In fact, just this week alone 3 news items (including this NASA press release) popped up that undermine the Rare Earth Hypothesis' base assumption that earth & its location in the universe is privileged.

[ZeroID]

They have just also announced that they have trebled the number of stars from earlier estimations and it's now in the Septillions (?!!) range. Heaps more options for life to start in some form when you multiply that by the number of probable planets and environments orbiting stars out there.
I think it's very presumptuous for us to assume we are the only life in the entire universe with that many possible variations.
The big problem is that probably 99.99999% of it is so far away that we will never know if an entire civilization has emerged, existed and then dissappeared. Even our earliest radio transmissions are at best only a couple of hundred light years away and still travelling out. So our probability of ever knowing of another civilisation or any sentient life form is restricted to our very nearest neighbours speaking in light year terms.
I beleive there is, or was, or will be another life form out there, sentient or intelligent but we will never know. The distances are just too great to comprehend as a contact option.

[AstralTraveller]

Well, back to the topic. :) The announcement has been made and it is what was suspected: microbes that have substituted As for P in their chemistry. Instread of phosphate chains they have arsenate chains in their RNA and DNA. I wonder now whether these organisms if kept away from P for long enough would find P toxic the same way we find As toxic. That would truly be arsenate about. :P

[AstralTraveller]

I don't think you can say that. The earliest life evolved before their was any free oxygen. In fact the oxygen we breath is generally accepted to be other life forms waste products. It could well be that the ecosystems that live around the 'black smokers' are much closer to the original life forms. These communities are based on chemo-autotrophic bacteria rather than photosynthesis and use chemicals such as hydrogen sulphide, which is very toxic to us, as a food source.

[CraigS]

Hmm .. the recent Cassini discovery of free oxygen in the atmosphere of Rhea would add a data point of disproof to this one, it being thought to have been created by radiolysis.

Cheers
PS: Remote observations of Europa and Ganymede also show atmospheric oxygen.

[ngcles]

Hi David & All,



:lol::lol:

Boom boom ! And it got past the profanity filter to boot.


Best,

Les D

[supernova1965]

Nor is there enough data for some to say that life doesn't exist and that we are the only ones. But statistical records show that if something has happened once it is more likely to happen again and that the more chances it has to happen again "ie" more stars and therefore more planets the more likely it is to happen. I think that we consider that other planets must be like Earth to evolve life but NASA's announcement shows that the old thoughts on what is needed for life has to be changed and new possibilities considered.



http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Extraterrestrial%20life.htm


I am really enjoying this discussion:thumbsup::D

[joe_smith]

For the time argument watch this (http://www.tedxamsterdam.com/2009/video-wubbo-ockels-on-time-and-gravity/), Wubbo Ockels say Time is a MAN-MADE phenomenon.

Quote from TED site,

[TheAstroGuy]

The statitistics
1) The number of galaxies. An estimated 50 billion galaxies are visible with modern telescopes and the total number in the universe must surely exceed this number by a huge factor, but we will be conservative and simply double it. That's 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.
2) The number of stars in an average galaxy. As many as hundreds of billions in each galaxy.
Lets call it just 100 billion.
That's 100,000,000,000 stars per galaxy.
3)The number of stars in the universe.
So the total number of stars in the universe is roughly 100 billion x 100 billion.
That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, 10 thousand, billion, billion. Properly known as 10 sextillion. And that's a very conservative estimate.
4) The number of stars that have planetary systems. The original extra-solar system planet hunting technology dictated that a star needed to be to close to us for a planet to be detected, usually by the stars 'wobble'. Better technology that allows us to measure the dimming of a stars brightness when a planet crosses its disk has now revolutionised planet hunting and new planets are being discovered at an ever increasing rate. So far (August 2003) around 100 have been discovered so we have very little data to work on for this estimate. Even so, most cosmologists believe that planetary formation around a star is quite common place. For the sake of argument let us say it's not and rate it at only one in a million and only one planet in each system, as we want a conservative estimate, not an exaggerated one. That calculation results in:
10,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe. Ten million, billion, as a conservative estimate.
5) The number planets capable of supporting life. Let's assume that this is very rare among planets and rate it at only one in a million. Simple division results in:
10,000,000,000 planets in the universe capable of producing life. Ten billion!
I am really enjoying this discussion:thumbsup::D[/QUOTE]





:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thum bsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thum bsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

GREAT STATISTICS WELL SAID, I LOVE IT, course there's something out there, and if not just watch Stargate and dream.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

[joe_smith]

Simple division results in:
10,000,000,000 planets in the universe capable of producing life. Ten billion!

Ten billion worlds out there, billions of dollars being spent, Amount we have found 0 :question: seems like a lot less then 10,000,000,00 seems more closer to 0 to me.
Until we find one, I think we might have just as much chance as finding a real live big-foot than life out there, the evidence for both is about the same ;)

[supernova1965]

Here you go, I rest my case:rofl:

[joe_smith]

:rofl: I like that one :)

Well you proved big-foot lives :eyepop: now find real life out there and win a Nobel prize

[jenchris]

Have you met my partner?
Ronald Macdonald's shoes would be too small

[ngcles]

Hi Warren, Shane & All,



I'm enjoying it too -- you have already arrived at a conclusion that is a more conservative estimate than my own -- by one or two orders of magnitude in fact. My estimate was between 1 and 10 civilisations in our Milky Way galaxy with one being more likely.

Your figures conclude

100 billion galaxies that include 10 billion civilisations ... that's one civilisation per ten galaxies -- or 0.1 civilisations per galaxy.

Very much in line with my conclusion thank you ! :D

To take it further, if we read your words exactly your conclusion is: "10 billion with life", of which 1 in 10 would have multicellular life, of which maybe 1 in 100 would have plants and animals of which maybe 1 in 100,000 would develop intelligence, of which maybe 1/100 would become space-faring races.

This leaves us with one space faring race in the Universe. We are already a space faring race.

Natural conclusion is ...


Best,

Les D

P.S Did I just hear a "Whoops ..."

[CraigS]

Yep .. I agree with that.

Could you perhaps point me to where I might be able to find a peer-reviewed scientific paper which demonstrates the logic supporting this statement ?



Yep. New thoughts about where to look for our version of it .. nothing else.



Yep .. amazing isn’t it ?
We might be the 1 in ten billion chance occurrence, too !
.. or, we might not be !

And until another instance is found, these are the only rational statements we can make. Any other 'statistical' ones, are purely conjecture.



No worries Warren .. we both know no-one's going to get to be right here, eh ? ;):)

Cheers & Rgds

[supernova1965]

Here is one. I will keep looking for more

http://oz.berkeley.edu/~stark/SticiGui/Text/probabilityPhilosophy.htm (http://oz.berkeley.edu/%7Estark/SticiGui/Text/probabilityPhilosophy.htm)

[firstlight]

I am not sure what the purpose of the press release from NASA was intended to do. It's tantalising wording has caused speculation from discovery of microbes on Mars to an alien airport at Area 51 to invasion by a warlike extragalactic race.

The whole upshot is NASA rehashes some work done and published at least 2 years ago (obviously more work done since then, probably confirmation of results at teh very least). The hornets nest is stirred, and many people are putting forward their hard held beliefs as ultimate truths (pardon me while I go rustle up some stakes and matches). The scientist will say "It cannot be with out proof"... The Believer's gut feeling says "It must exist elsewhere". Without the scientific method we cannot advance because if we do not underpin our knowledge with proof and prediction we walk on thin ice and go crashing through.

To believe without proof and use the obvious "facts" as basis of world/universal view leads to the perception that any disagreement is heretical (I've got the matches here if you need them).

Personally I have trouble believing that the universe conspired to create one oand only one cradle of life, but that is a gut belief on my part. I have no evidence of this as I have only a sample of one, but I look in the sky (well not lately with La Nina), it seems that the odds are too small for no other life.:question: However the scientist cannot say that it doesn't/cannot exist... no data. :shrug:

I'm not sure that we will ever know, but this discussion was about the NASA press release. The question remains: Why announce old news in this manner? It can only harm their reputation and creditability, IMHO.

So... to recap, I am with Warren in that it "seems to be an awful waste of space" (thanks Eric), but I can see where Craig is coming from and the scientific method. Hows that for fence sitting? :P

PS thare has been some creative maths in this thread :)

[CraigS]

On Exo-life possibilities:
Yeah Tony .. cool words .. good onya :thumbsup:.
Its Ok to have an opinion …. mine is that I wouldn't have the foggiest … and neither does anyone else .. so don't go using statistics or science as a 'front' for what is purely a belief (or gut-feel).

On the press release:
IMHO its done to guide researchers and give them some support in their next bid for funding. Ie: its a hint of 'Strategic Guidelines' for justifying future bid proposals and to give some foundations for where to go looking for exo-life, in future space exploration … nothing more.

One thing extra one can say .. if we don't go looking for exo-life .. we won't find it and thus, this gives credence to the 'it doesn't exist' argument.

Cheers

[MikeyB]

It's worse than that, as from actual experience here on Earth, the ratio of human-level intelligent species to the rest of the plants and animals is at best around 1 in 10,000,000 = 100 times fewer than 1 in 100,000.

[ngcles]

Hi Tony & All,



Well to divert back somewhat to topic, the answer I think is reasonably obvious. NASA and all their programmes are almost entirely dependent upon the public purse. In order to gain public support for all the programmes they run (remembering it's the public who vote) they have to gain popular media exposure.

Now if NASA puts out a bland press release to the effect that they'd discovered some microbe that thrives in an arsenic laden environment, that story will promptly end up on the spike and in all likelyhood few (if any) popular media reps will attend a press-conference and it will all pass under the radar. Most of us here appreciate that this finding is a moderately interesting if not moderately important story. The popular media and the public at large won't or don't -- so it won't be reported. The extent of science literacy in the mainstream media is appalling.

However, NASA know as well as anyone that over the last 70-odd years, nearly all of us have become conditioned to believe that E.T is out there, E.T is good, we must make contact with E.T etc etc. Not for one single solitary moment am I accusing anyone of being in an unlawful or immoral conspiracy -- it is just a natural result of the media and entertainment industry and the ideal being sold to us. They're (the media and enterntainment industry) not doing an evil thing in doing this -- all they are setting out to do is make a buck (Star Trek, E.T, X-Files, Area 51 etc etc). Its a good story, its a popular story, there's a buck to be made out of it -- push it while it's turning over a dollar.

Most people, purely as a result of popular culture (and without any empirical evidence) want to believe. They are eager for news that science fiction in this regard is become science fact.

The practical upshot of this is that NASA can gain exposure and wide public support by being seen to pursue the quest for finding E.T -- because everyone wants that question answered and a large majority want it answered in the affirmative (rightly or wrongly).

To then do it the way they do it gains them media attention, which in turn enhances public support (people now know NASA is actively pursuing the E.T question), which ensures the money (from government) keeps flowing into all their programmes.

In the end it's just sensible P.R. I reckon.

The popular media (by and large) loves it too. For two days speculation has run rife all over the world. Speculation about exceptional news makes headlines that sells copy and boosts circulation/ratings. Hot copy generates advertising revenue. Advertising revenue boosts the bottom line -- get it!

If instead NASA had gone the conservative route, the story would probably have been immediately spiked in favour of a "Man bites dog" expose or a story about how some revolutionary new herbal tea makes your bottom look smaller or what Paris Hilton is up to with that fellow in the dark glasses. NASA gets no exposure. Their public profile drops, their relevance to the voter drops and then ultimately, their budget drops when the time comes to slice-up the pie. Feed that on ... what then happens to the grants that several members of this forum (Anthony & Trevor + ors) are in receipt of to carry on important work when NASA's budget is cut ??

FWIW, that's the way I see it.


Best,

Les D

[TrevorW]

Some people I think may be a bit arrogant to think that intelligent life is unique in this galaxy let alone in the universe, personally I think life it's rampant throughout but maybe not life as we know it Jimmy

[joe_smith]

But where is the proof that there is all this extra life? the proof so far is nil all we have is a maths equation that points to the probability of it being a fact, not proof it is a fact. You could probably have a probability equation to say anything is probable, even walking through a wall. just because there is life here doesn't prove there is life anywhere else, Just because there is a elephant in the zoo doesn't prove there is one is my house, there probably may be one there or probably not, but not the proof.

The NASA announcement is good because its making people think outside the standard world view of what we think life might be like. Just like the TED video I put up, It points to new views on how we view life, not just with a earth only view of universe,

[higginsdj]

I think you missed his point Craig. He wasn't making a statement as to the origins of Oxygen, just it's use by lifeforms

[higginsdj]

This is basic statistics/logic, it doesn't require a peer reviewed scientific paper! If humans commit murder, the more humans there are the more murders are committed. Yes there are other factors than just numbers of humans but statistics/observation shows this logic to be true. Is there any reason such logic cannot be applied here?

[supernova1965]

I am sorry but I have to answer your question with another one where is your proof that it doesn't exist at least there is a scientific mathematical equation that points to the probability of it being a fact. I have yet to see any shred of evidence mathematical or another type (correct me if I am wrong by providing such) but sofar in this discussion I have seen pleanty of circumstantial evidence for life existing out there but absolutely none to show that it doesn't exist. A maths equation is not nil it is scientific and has been used to prove countless things in the past all of the things we take for granted like the computers and internet we are having this discussion on are the result of mathematics.

There may not be an Elephant in your house have you checked your fridge lately I have heard that they tend to be where the Peanut Butter is check it for footprints:thumbsup: it doesn't mean that there are none it just means they are not in your house but they are in India and Africa.

[pmrid]

I wonder if that accounts for some of the 'missing' matter that has led to the dark energy construct.
Peter

[CraigS]

Oh brother !!! …

I give up guys … I'm going back to reading !!

Cheers & Rgds

[Waxing_Gibbous]

To digress a little. Seems that NASA shot itself in the foot again. Big hoo-hah, little result - for a SPACE agency. Its a huge deal for biologists, probably worth some kind of prize, but NASA claiming credit when all they did was pony-up the readies sort of back-fires. I suspect JQ Public was expecting something on the order of "ET is a virus!" or "Bugs on Mars!", and what we got was old news about another extremeophile.
NASA really needs to re-think its PR.

[torana68]

too right, its dullsville, NASA = Space to nearly everyone on the planet, all that fuss for nothing space related.... they should be feeling very emabarrassed

[Kevnool]

If nasa is paying salaries of 50,000 as in a previous thread then you take what you can get.
I can remember they had monkeys at one stage.

Cheers kev.

[AstralTraveller]

I think the scientists are obviously very good at what they do. They may be underpaid but they ain't no monkeys.

I think the thrust of NASA's astrobiology research is reasonable and well targetted. We aren't going 'out there' to look for life in the foreseeable future so it's reasonable to spend the time figuring out what to look for. And this type of research is very cheap compared to space missions.

OK the announcement was overblown that, as Les said, it was part of the political reality that they need to stay in the public eye. Here at uni they have a section whose job it is to generate positive publicity. They have regular articles in the 'IQ' section of the local rag looking at one academic or another's research. Then they keep a steady trickle of announcement about funding success, ranking next to other uni, significant discoveries etc etc. The positives from this are probably difficult to quantify but they are doubtless real and significant.

[joe_smith]

By the fact there has been none found. Do you mean that you don't have to have the proof to say that there IS life out there. No proof so far means no life out there. You can have a personal belief that there is life out there or you can have a personal belief that there is none. until life is found its only a theory. if you base there is life out there on a maths equation that can go either way, (like the stupid drake equation put the real numbers in and it comes out 0, NIL.) then you must say UFO's are real and the gods exists by the evidence put forward by them, if you don't have to prove the maths is true, they don't have to prove their story's and evidence. Science cant have it both ways.

But the equations for life in the universe haven't been proven to be true that IS the difference so you cant say it is a fact that it is real, you have faith it is true not evidence.

I agree and that is my whole point

just because Elephant's exist in India and Africa this is not proof or evidence that Elephant 's exist in your house.
Which is the same as
Just because life exists on Planet Earth, This is not proof or evidence that Life exists on planet X or Y and even Z.

This type of argument "there is life on Earth so there must be life out there", isn't a theory its, as someone said "a bit arrogant" of the actual data found so far.

btw my elephant is in the mini, not in the fridge. I guard my peanut butterhttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/../vbiis/images/smilies/rofl.gif

[supernova1965]

You can't say because it hasn't been found yet it doesn't exist that is illogical its like saying because I can't go into space that it is impossible its just that I don't have the technical ability or the financial resources to do it or the physical ability:sadeyes:. But I know it is possible.

The below quote is an example of what I mean it wasn't proven that the Earth was a sphere, untill it was proven did that mean that the earth was flat because no-one had proved it:question:.







I wasn't trying to prove the elephant was in your house you stated that.:lol: Because it was in the zoo didn't mean it was in your house but it proved they existed somewhere otherwise it wouldn't be in the zoo they had to get them from somewhere. And the equations for life in the universe have not been disproven either and it seems to me that you are going on faith that the no life exists without any supporting science at all other than I can't see it so it doesn't exist. Unless you are playing Devils Advocate:D:P

[Octane]

Warren,

You're going around in circles drawing on incongruous analogies.

Fact: life hasn't been found elsewhere.
Fact: does it mean it doesn't exist? No.
Fact: does it mean it does exist? No.
Fact: we just don't know.

H

[allan gould]

Sorry to have to say this bit your chat in this thread is just sooo way off the mark that it's odd. The full implications of their announcement is that in the organism isolated that arsenic can replace phosphorous in the DNA helix of this bacteria. As a molecular biologist this is an astounding observation which does have many implcations for evolution and molecular biology. It's has nothing to do with how many aliens Are out there but shows a vivid light on the preconceptions that we hold for where life may eventuate and evolve.

[Waxing_Gibbous]

Got to agree with Allen here.
I think NASA announcing it was a huge mistake. It changes the emphasis from a truly noteworthy discovery by dedicated bio-scientists, to a damp squib from the rocket boffins.
The discovery itself is just astounding. Alas its doomed to public obscurity, or worse, bad joke status, thanks to the messenger. Credit where its due here, although not "space-related", it IS an amazing bit of science and should stand by itself rather than being rolled-in to a dubious PR campaign by NASA.

[TrevorW]

My point exactly

"life as we know it Jimmy"

life can take mamy forms had it not been for the dinosaur extinction it's possible that intelligent reptiles could have eventually been the dominant life form on Earth.

As has so resolutely been pointed out just becasue we have not found life doesn't mean that life as such does not exist

LIfe could evolve and adapt in many harsh enviroments as has been seen from examples on Earth where life has formed, who is too say that life could not evolve in similar conditions elsewhere.

It would be naive of me too think that in all the billions of worlds out there that some form of life could not evolve on some distant planet in a remote corner of our own galaxy let alone the rest of the universe.

Consider the fact that if earth had of been give of take 10,000,000 miles or so, from where it is, would man have evolved as a species.

So although some may say that because we have not found life it therefore can't exist they would be doing so in ignorance and with the belief that life on Earth is unique in the whole universe.

[joe_smith]

but the NASA release was being put in the "search for life" arena surely this type of release is going to generate this type of debate, and so it should without debate and questioning of science ideas, how can we get new idea's and different views to solve the original questions.

So everything in my imagination has the potential to being true because it hasn't been found yet? that's illogical to me.



I agree 100% with this, BUT the onus is with SCIENCE to prove life is out there because all the data SCIENCE has now is NIL evidence for it. The above is based on your own egotistic world view, and every human on earth has there own, me included, its not a debate to find out who is right. Its to base the truth of the matter with the real data science has.

All I'm trying to say that the whole search for life in the universe is the same as looking for the Loch Ness monster, until we find it SCIENCE says it doesn't exist.

[TrevorW]

I do not believe it egotistical to think otherwise that because something has not been proven to exist therefore it doesn't.

You only have to look at what has been envisioned in science fiction by creative thinkers that people ridiculed as impossible, improbable and beyond the realms of science that in time were proven possible.

I believe it more a case of having an open mind to the probability that life may exist in one form or another somewhere else the universe and because science has not proven it to exist, does not render its existence improbable but moreso highly likely considering the known forms of life existing under such a myriad of circumstances.

"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with it's several powers having being orginally breathed into a few forms or into one and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved", CD TOOS

[supernova1965]

If science says it doesn't exist then nothing and I mean nothing would have been invented because science is the search for answers to the UNKNOWN not the result of stubbing our toe on discovery and then running with it. Science doesn't say it doesn't exist it says it may exist now lets prove it in the positive or negative if scientists thought that science says there is nothing there they wouldnt be scientists because science is the thirst for learning in a way science is the result of curiosity and imagination of what could be possible. In my opionion science says it is there until it is proved to be not there if it wasn't this way why bother searching we may as well pack up and wait to die as a species because we will stagnate.

[Kevnool]

Can someone tell me what the big story was about (announcment) ?

[supernova1965]

They whoever discovered I am unsure, a bacteria that has arsnic as part of its dna I think that is right and doesn't rely on Phospherous which was considered a needed ingredient for life.

[Kevnool]

Thx Warren

I,ll sleep on it now.

Cheers Kev.

[M_Lewis]

As an actual qualified microbacteriologist (for those who dont' know - people who study virus's and bacteria, and micro-organisms), and also an astronomer, it's information which qualifies what some of my work and professional colleges believe, that microbial life does exist outside the boundaries of our planet. Unfortunately we dont' have the vehicle or means to zoom off out to them, say g'day and zoom back with a few happy snaps.

Asteroids specimens that I have personally seen at QUT (queensland university of technology), which have interesting, I guess you could call 'footprints' or evidence of microbial activity inside the core of them, discovered when sliced open, further supports this theory.

I once remember going to a public astronomy event a few years back, where the astonomer running the show asked the public did anyone believe NASA did not land on the moon. Like clockwork, there was some idiot who put up his hand and claimed it was all nonsense, and supported the conspiracy theory of it being made in a movie studio. The astronomer then swung around the telescope (which was a really really big one) and showed us one of the lunar modules on the surface of the moon. It was rather comical to watch the conspiracy person eat his words.

To think life does not exist outside of this planet is like having your eyes open with the horse paddles on.

I'll leave with one more piece of hard evidence (or lack of) - ever wonder the earth is not older than 4.2billion years old? The answer is simple - they simply haven't foound an older rock on earth, older than 4.2 billion years yet.

I'll go back to eating my popcorn now...

[joe_smith]

Here is a good article about the discovery Thriving on Arsenic (http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3698/thriving-on-arsenic)

[astroron]

QUOTE
I once remember going to a public astronomy event a few years back, where the astonomer running the show asked the public did anyone believe NASA did not land on the moon. Like clockwork, there was some idiot who put up his hand and claimed it was all nonsense, and supported the conspiracy theory of it being made in a movie studio. The astronomer then swung around the telescope (which was a really really big one) and showed us one of the lunar modules on the surface of the moon. It was rather comical to watch the conspiracy person eat his words.QUOTE


Mark!
I did not think there is a Telescope on earth that can observe any of the Lunar lander's or any other hardware left on the moon:shrug:
They where as far as I am aware only imaged in the last year or so from lunar orbiters.
As for looking through Large Telescopes, what do you call large?
None of the large scopes in Auss or in the states over a meter or so do not as far as I know have eyepieces:shrug:
Please enlighten us as to were this occurred, and when.:question:
I would be very interested :thumbsup:
Cheers

[OICURMT]

http://calgary.rasc.ca/moonscope.htm

[M_Lewis]

Good conspiracy huh :D

[astroron]

I am afraid you have me confused:shrug:
you said that you where at a meeting where an astronomer pointed a scope at the moon and showed the a moon lander:question:
Why did you make such an untrue statement:question::question::quest ion:
Cheers

[ZeroID]

Wow! this thread has taken a few twists and turns since I last checked on it.



They mentioned that in the announcement of the estimation increase. Have to bring out the big calculators again and start all over.

[bird]

http://xkcd.com/638/

[supernova1965]

Nice say's it all

[jjjnettie]

I want to believe!

[supernova1965]

Well said JJJ

Its like your signature says

[OICURMT]

He was jerking our proverbial chain...:screwy::confuse3:

[OICURMT]

On reading his post again....


:shrug::screwy::shrug::screwy:

[Kevnool]

What a great read Very interesting Thx

Cheers Kev

[astroron]

Where you on the Tirps when you made this post :question: :screwy::screwy::screwy::screwy:

[joe_smith]

It all depends on how life started here.

If it was just a one of freak event, like some say it my never be repeated anywhere else in the time the universe has been here.

If early life came to this planet then started its evolutionary path. Then yes there properly is life out there, as it will start the same way as life here.

Until its found we will never know whether the "yes" or "no" answer will be answered, but don't forget the data we have today points to NO, all we have is wish full thinking that life is out there and not one scrap of evidence so far. So prove your statement above, prove its right with the data science has, something that says anything else then "migh be" "could be" or "maybe" that most science journals have in them. Its all speculation on the data we have.

[Waxing_Gibbous]

"Myself, when young, did eagerly frequent
doctor and saint, and heard great argument.
About it and about: but evermore Came out the same door
as in I went."
Omar Khayam XXVII

Plus ca change....... :D

[supernova1965]

Please show me the data that points to NO that is all I ask:question:

[mswhin63]

I think some of the discussions on this posted are off topic, there is another post - http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=663210#post663210 that is discussing possible life on other systems based on other findings.

The NASA announcment is over and may need discuss in another thread so newcomers know what the discussion is all about.

[Darth Wader]

I treat the possibility of extraterrestrial life like I view the existence of a deity. There is not a shred of evidence. Until there is evidence, I will remain cautiously agnostic.

The bottom line, whether you believe or not, is that we simply don't know. We may never know. At this point in time I believe it's far more important to focus on our own existence.

[dugnsuz]

+1

Who loves ya baby? Err Wadey!?:P

[joe_smith]

On thing I was wondering about the finding is, could life like the ones that use arsenic, get kick started in that type of planetary environment? because to me the bacteria can only use arsenic because of a mutation from one the ones that cant. They evolved that feature they didn't get the jump-start to life solely from that environment. So for me I think we still might need a environment like earth to kick-start it.

ALL the data so far collected from ALL the experiments done on planet earth and low orbit, So far they have proven 0% for life anywhere out there. We might have the same odds as finding the goose that lays golden eggs then life out there. Dont forget even this latest "big news" from NASA was only about Earth based bacteria, now if they found it in the solar system then it would be really NASA news. You should try and get a copy of the book that's mentioned some where in this lot of posts called "RARE EARTH Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe" I just started reading it :thumbsup:

I agree 100% with this and maybe NASA need some new ideas. :help2:

[supernova1965]

I like discussions where people are willing to see the proof but sometimes people are so comfortable thinking that we are the only ones that they refuse to see. And that is fine but sooner or later we realise that The Truth is OUT THERE I am willing to concede if shown the evidence that life does'nt exist but no-one has been able to provide that proof. And dispite many examples of the chances being high for life being provided. I have tried to remain objective and have failed to find objectivity in return so I am signing off with. IT IS OUT THERE SO LONG AND GOODBYE AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH:thumbsup::D:thanx:

[CraigS]

Hey Warren;

Perhaps everyone who's been involved in this thread, feels a bit like this (http://blog.sironaconsulting.com/.a/6a00d8341c761a53ef0120a4e52bcc970b-pi) …

…a potential entry for this month's Photo Challenge, too !
(Pity I didn't take it !)

:)

Cheers & Rgds

[dugnsuz]

Looks like Wiki Leaks will have an answer for you all soon...
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/8455783/assange-hints-at-ufo-cable-release

[Darth Wader]

:lol:

[joe_smith]

You must have some evidence that the rest of us haven't seen, Please show us this proof that has been proven, so we all can see it.

So tell me one that has proven to have worked. searching for life has know where been, anywhere near proven. I can believe and have faith that they are right. but not base they are out there as proof by the "theories of chances" especially when all to data so far says "NO Proof yet".

objective?? you are locked into your view that Life is out there without the proof its in anyway remotely out there, there is a group on earth that have the same faith and belief without the proof as well, so why are you guys right and those guys so wrong. :shrug: seems like the same argument without the proof because they also provide examples of the chances. I go by the DATA not the many examples of "chances", I also hope and pray that, the day we might get that data that finally proves it, I am still here, but until then objectivity "NO PROOF IS NO LIFE". no matter how much you bang your head against the wall while trying to prove your many examples of the "chances" being high for life being provided, are in anyway A PROVEN FACT.

[TrevorW]

You could also argue that God does not exist because there is no proof that he/it does exist but when you talk about faith then you do believe that God exists, this is not science. Likewise you could believe in the theory of creation not that of evolution likewise without supporting scientific proof.

However the probablity of life existing elsewhere in our universe is based on known science ie: how life formed on earth and mathematics, from these, conclusions are made that the probability of life existing elsewhere is statistically high given the right set of circumstances.

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/wiki/Informal_fallacy). It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/wiki/False_dichotomy) in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false.

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Carl Sagan (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/wiki/Carl_Sagan) famously criticized the practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity", pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This should not, however, be taken to mean that one can never possess evidence the something does not exist.