Nasa press release!!

[Jeeps (Sam)]

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

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

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.. He has only just landed where I am in the movie so please no spoilers.

[blindman]

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

[Jen]

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

[ngcles]

Hi Warren & All,

Originally Posted by 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
[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]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.

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 (Malcolm)]

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 (Robin)]

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 (Luis)]

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

Cheers, Luis.

[CraigS]

Nasa article here.

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:

The results of this study will inform ongoing research in many areas, including the study of Earth's evolution, organic chemistry, biogeochemical cycles, disease mitigation and Earth system research. These findings also will open up new frontiers in microbiology and other areas of research.

Its for the researchers.

Cheers

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by ngcles

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.

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 (Ivo)]

Originally Posted by ngcles

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.

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 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 (Brent)]

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 (David)]

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.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

As to Conan the Bacterium and his friends: all extremeophiles on earth evolved from earlier organisms which began in much less hostile environments....

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]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

In fact the oxygen we breath is generally accepted to be other life forms waste products.

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,

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

That would truly be arsenate about.

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


Best,

Les D

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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!

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


I am really enjoying this discussion

[joe_smith]

Originally Posted by 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...

For the time argument watch this, Wubbo Ockels say Time is a MAN-MADE phenomenon.

Quote from TED site,

In his mind-bending TEDxAmsterdam talk, Ockels explains how ‘time’ is created by human beings, as a way our brains can make sense of gravity. The speed of light is constant, because it is made by us: it’s the clock by which we have calibrated our existence. Based on this premise, Ockels proposes a new way to explore life in our galaxy

[TheAstroGuy (Shane Ross)]

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[/QUOTE]





:thum bsup: :thum bsup:

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

MERRY CHRISTMAS