Surley we are not alone.....

[bartman]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1103/KeplerSunsPlanets_rowe.jpg

I like this pic....
I know It's a representation, but it gives you some sort of .....well feeling of........:question:


Bartman

[Miaplacidus]

I thought I'd just put in the link to apod so people can read the text.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110329.html

(And don't call me Surley!)

[CraigS]

… Artwork …
:)
Cheers

[leon]

Now that is different, thought it was a joke at first, until I read the reason behind it.

Leon

[Suzy]

This isn't a true representation as most of these aren't confirmed, but what a knock out looking pic all the same. :)

When I first saw that pic, I thought gosh what have I missed recently, they must have found & confirmed bucket loads very quickly and very recently, :lol: so I went looking for more info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet

From Wikki...

[CraigS]

Yep. Spot on Suzy !

What's more, the molecular sequences we've observed in DNA are self-similar, repeated over and over amongst species and, especially within the same species. So too, are the macro features of all species across all species on Earth. The processes which control them whilst unimaginably complex, are also ultimately based on the very simple mathematical rules of chemistry and physics.

This leads to the recognition that life can be described as an element of a fractal pattern .. the hallmark of a chaotic process.

Chaotic processes are totally dependent on the initial environmental conditions from which they ultimately emerge. However, not only do we know that the DNA patterns we recognise as leading to life emerge, but equally so, do chaotic patterns which go nowhere (in terms of resulting in life).

Even if the same conditions as we had on primordial Earth exist elsewhere, it can be proven mathematically that we still can't predict what the outcome might be.

This means that we can't even say (with any scientific basis):

i) that a planet in the 'Habitable Zone', with environmental conditions like Earth once had, will result in life.

Nor can we say:

ii) that a planet in the 'Habitable Zone', with environmental conditions like Earth once had, will not result in life.

But we can say with 100% mathematical assurance:

iii) that the chances of life emerging on a planet in the 'Habitable Zone', with environmental conditions like Earth once had, are entirely unpredictable.

Classic stuff, eh ?

This is what I see when I look at the pictures Bart posted.
No matter how many photographs of orbiting exo-planets and host stars they publish, there is only one thing which can be said with 100% assurance:

The implications of those photos, in terms of the possibility of life emerging on the exo-planets, is entirely unpredictable.

Comments welcome.

:)

Cheers

[rally]

So Craig,

This is a fact not a hypothesis or theory ??

No caveats due to the vast vacuum of knowledge we have about life anywhere else except Earth at such an early stage in our discovery and our ability to analyse exoplanetary data ?

Mathematical and statistical analysis based on just one subject's life - Earth !

Nudge Nudge !

Rally

[CraigS]

I stand by my exact words in Post #6 ... until someone can demonstrate the flaws in the argument. Hopefully, this is seen as a 'friendly' challenge .. as it is not driven by arrogance. I am perfectly willing to say I'm wrong !
I'm eager to learn from this bold stand, also !
Good luck ! (No prizes).
:)

Hmm …
i) can you define for me: "life anywhere else except Earth" ?
ii) "our ability to analyse exoplanetary data" would seem irrelevant. But developing the ability to detect life remotely, will assist in us in removing the assured unpredictability this perspective gives us.



See (i) above.
And thanks for the feedback and conversation.
:)
Cheers

[avandonk]

Life is inevitable given conditions where water is a liquid. It only needs time if all the necessary atomic elements are present. What morphology it would take is the only unpredictable thing. It would still follow the basic forms of fractals ie bifurcation and self similarity. Complex animals as a first approximation are a tube with a mouth at one end and an anus at the other. You cannot have complex animals in a two dimensional world as they would simply fall in half. What appendages develop again is purely by chance. But the equivalent of legs eyes noses ears etc will inevitably uccur.

Do a google on 'homeoboxes'. The same sequences of DNA in flies and humans govern the development of legs arms etc.

We do have 'alien' life to study. Bacteria that live in solid granite and the life around deep sea vents. The bacteria that use Arsenic in the place of Phosphorus in their DNA and ATP are another example. The extremophiles also show what is possible in what we consider as conditions to extreme for life. I will not mention the snoticles.

Bert

[CraigS]

Ok … Bert's got me shakin in me boots (a little bit) but none-the-less, here goes:



Why ?
If the outcome is totally dependent on the initial conditions, (ie: where water is a liquid), and the outcome is totally unpredictable, how can you predict life will form ?
What about the cases having all the same initial conditions, (as we had here on Earth way back), and the outcome is total chaos without self assembly ?

Why is the unpredictability limited only to the morphology ?



What about the case where such extremophiles have evolved from other forms of life, and adapted to these new conditions ?
This case, is different from the case of emergence of life from primordial environments. I might even assert that such life forms have moved from some other environment elsewhere on earth and evolved to meet the new conditions. By what means do we assert that these life forms originated in those environments/conditions ?

Cheers & Rgds & thanks for the conversation.

[avandonk]

Craig many scientists are of the opinion extremophiles are similar to if not the first life.

They have this fantastic ability where their biological macromolecules are very thermally stable. The enzymes they have work at a vast range of temperatures and pH etc. The puny enzymes we have need 37C and strictly controlled chemical environments to even stay intact let alone do their work as an enzyme. Proteins are inherently temperature labile. The extremophiles have very temperature stable proteins.

We have traded off stabilty for efficiency by being warm blooded and temperature controlled. It leads to far more subtle complex controllable molecular interactions.

A simple example is when you boil a chicken egg. All the protein denatures and loses its conformation. The egg is now dead!

Bert

[CraigS]

See, my point is that the predictive statement:

"Wherever liquid water is found, (in what they define as a 'Habitable Zone'), that 'life will inevitably emerge";

.. unless supported with either mathematical certainty, (and a set of determinable conditions), or instances of direct empirical evidence, the Chaos view, which does provide us with a definitive statement, is directly at odds with it.

If neither evidence nor mathematical certainty can be presented, the statement is not scientifically supportable.

Whereas, the Chaos statement about unpredictability being certain .. IS supportable.

No matter how many exo-environments, with liquid water exist in the 'Habitable Zone', the only supportable statement about emergence of life, is that it is still totally unpredictable that life will emerge there.

The possibility that life may migrate from elsewhere, and then inhabit that world, is possible, (using our earthly extremophile evidence and a credible transport mechanism), .. but that it orginates in that environment, remains, guaranteed, as uncertain.

Cheers & Rgds & thanks for the conversation.

[bartman]

Craig you have previously stated in another thread that you ( loosely translated - and sorry for that statement) do not believe in any one theory so as to have a broader view of things/stuff etc.( and learn more as a consequence; which is what I aim for too)

In laymans terms; "we" cant comprehend what lies beyond the 'edge' of the universe, or how we can split the most smallest 'thing/particle' ( to date)in two, or 'know' what started/caused the Big Bang........

So how can you ask for/imply evidence, mathematical, scientific or otherwise, to consider the statement that "we are not alone"?

Are you raising questions/conundrums to get peoples creative juices going and thereby possibly finding an answer to your/our questions.......cause its working.......for me at least:thumbsup:

This post was actually directed at my friend Surley;), and wanted to know if we were the only people who thought the pic and its significance were thought provoking.
Maybe the title should have been:
" Heya Surley, we are not alone in liking this picture. *We will* pin the tail on the donkey soon!"
( translation -*we will* find something or nothing, sometime or never)
*Or should that be "will we"?*
Aaaahhhh fence sitter...open mind.....

Bartman

[ngcles]

Hi Craig & All,



Agree 100%

Add to that, that even if life did arise, there is no guarantee of complex life and from that, no guarantee of animal life and from that, no guarantee of intelligent life -- in fact quite the opposite.

As I've said before I have no emotional baggage with this subject I neither "want to believe", nor do I "want to dis-believe".

But If I were a betting man I'd be inclined to think that the number of civiisations out there in our galaxy is a single digit number, more likely a small single digit number and might well end up being ... 1 (i.e. us -- alone).

If I'm wrong -- I'm completely fine with that and it has no effect on my world (galactic, Universal) view. No matter which way you argue the toss, there is no empirical evidence that there are in fact other civilisations out there at this stage.


Best,

Les D

[CraigS]

I think I said:

This doesn't mean I'm not interested in the question, (or the quest to answer it) !


Its a great question. A great unsolved mystery. I love mysteries.
Funny thing though, once they're solved, I loose interest instantly !
:)
I personally don't care about the existence or otherwise of exo-life, because I have no vested interests in the existence of it (or not). I'm an amateur ! I don't have to convince funding boards to cough up the cash for the pursuit !
Isn't it great being an amateur ? Feel the power, brother ! :)
It would appear however, that I do have some vested interests in what can be said about the topic, though.
:)

Yes .. its a fascinating topic ! Lots to learn and many different perspectives to explore ! gotta keep the ears flapping though, and listen to what's being said also. Don't want to miss anything !



Hmm .. well I tell ya, Surley … the only scientifically supportable perspective which is a mathematical certainty, is that we cannot predict whether it exists or not.
You might call that fence-sitting.
I call it a sure bet ! (Ie: a winner !)

This simple point, completely justifies the pursuit of exo-life, and exploration of space.
If the question will simply not go away on its own, then the only actions to take to make it go away, are to go out there and find out !!
:)
Cheers

[bartman]

Les just curious.... if - as you say - there is no guarantee of intelligent life- then how can you say " in fact quite the opposite" ie you are saying there is NO life out there that could be intelligent?



I'll put a billion bucks on the fact ( ahemmm sorry-notion/ theory/ thought ...whatever ) that there are ( or have been for that matter ) civilizations out 'there'........before you take me up on that offer ...let me talk to my local bank / book maker :lol:.


......
yes and I agree to that :sadeyes::mad2:



:eyepop:Same here ......so true

But if the existance of exo life et al was true, you could have vested interests cause it would give you even more insight to the universe...... you know........ more than what 'we' can provide here on Earth:P


I'll be collecting in a few years....mmmm well maybe 1000 years.... my billion bucks...I guess ( and hope ) money wont be an option then....

Bartman

[bartman]

BTW a belated thank you Brian for posting the APOD link!!!!
Cheers
Bartman

[Suzy]

I agree with both these posts that Craig and Les made. :D

[Ric]

Life is out there somewhere.

We are not technologically advanced enough to find it.

I choose to believe that we are not alone.

[CraigS]

And its Ok to believe all that and say so, Ric.

Just don't be surprised when others don't see it your way.

They are just as right about the opposite view as you are.

And both of you would not have a perspective which outweighs the mathematical guarantee, (in the real world), which applies to the unpredictability of another instance of life.

Cheers

[yusufcam]

yes, these are my sentiments as well.

i would add that since becoming interested in astronomy and discovering the insanely inhospitable nature of space, (regardless of how tough a microbe is (wonder if a cockroach would survive?))

i am also leaning towards the idea its quite likely this is it.

Seti, after 50(?) years has drawn a total blank, and a number of scientists have drawn the conclusion that is a statement in itself.

looked at differently, i believe the whole thing is a spritely lesson given by the universe in how little we actually know (then, how does one weigh knowledge?).

have we even understood what life is?

how tangible are such things?

sometimes, i suspect, not knowing, can be liberating as well.

hardly scientific, o well, LOL

[Analog6]

We will be if we are 'surley' . . .

But seriously, there may be life out there so different we cannot recognise it. We assume (and you know what happens when you do that) it will be planet based. Why? Why not beings made up of some sort of matter floating through the ether? Pure minds?

Or maybe they are out there and have decided we are not worth bothering with, so they are either not answering or blocking themselves from our queries. We may be on the cosmic junk mail list!

Perhaps when our race grows out of the 'terrible twos' we'll finally discover some meaning to life.

[michaellxv]

Until such time as we find life out in the universe we are alone. You could even qualify this to say it must be 'inteligent' life that we can converse with.

Even if we find another earth with all the indicators of biological activity we would still be alone because we could not conduct a conversation.

This doesn't mean that we don't keep looking.