Is Their Life on Other Planets?

1. 0

   lesliebyarsposted 11 years ago

   Many scientists believe their is life on other planets. Not on Mars or Venus but in the next Solar System. What do you think and should NASA take this issue seriously?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think they'd better if we expect to ever visit.  There is absolutely no reason to think we're alone in this vast universe, OR to think that other life forms will never be inimical to our own.
      
      And, as an elementary precaution, that includes other solar system bodies.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I suggest that the dimensions of even just this Galaxy, The Milky Way, would mean that we don't have the slightest hope of communicating with a life form from another planet in the galaxy.
      
      Mathematics is not my best subject, but having researched via Google during the past few minutes, (the first site to come up when I asked for the size of the galaxy gave me something to do with Android cell phones!!!) it would seem that TV transmissions from 1950 would only now be reaching the far edge of the galaxy's rim.  That is travelling at the speed of light, approx. 9.5 billion km. per year.
      
      Ok, its a fascinating subject and a good relaxing break from God questions, but I do feel we should be solving problems on our own planet for now.   Your grand children in 2 centuries time would like a bit of the planet's ecosystem to be left for them to enjoy.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         mattforteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You apparently don't realize that we aren't even looking for life in another galaxy. That is actually far beyond the scope of our current technologies.
         The current search (and the question posted here) is life beyond our own solar system. Truth be told, there are planets that show promise only a few light years away.
         
         Your talk of going beyond the Milky Way is completely out of context here.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            One of your Hubs has been about the "Scientific Process."   Very reasonable and straight forward it is too.
            
            Yet now, in countering mine and other posts, you keep bringing in the word "likely," and base your suppositions upon that likelihood.   Not very good discussion, just trying the one-upmanship jibe.
            
            You could, instead, say to me:  "Mmmm, interesting point.   Yes, the universe as we know it is huge, and the distances and time factor do tend to mitigate against us ever communicating with some kind of extra-terrestrial life form."
            
            By the way, I of course realise that you are not talking about beyond the limits of the Milky Way.   But even within our galaxy, the distances and time factors are still prohibitively great.  You said:  "That is actually far beyond the scope of our current technologies."   I suggest it's not a matter of the technology, it's more the limitation posed by the speed of light.   I wonder what the theists think about this!  That should provide some entertainment.
            
            Continue with your surmising, your mind games, if it gives you fun.... but if you want to be scientific, be accurate.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               mattforteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               the size of the Milky Way is hardly prohibitive. Your initial argument was based entirely on the fact that the next galaxy is so far away...but the nearest solar systems are but a few light years. That is hardly "prohibitive". I wasn't trying to one up you at all, I simply pointed out a simple clear misunderstanding in your post.
               
               The rest of your post is just full of I'll conceived jabs that are apparently the result of hurting your ego, so I'm not going to bother.

               replyreport
      2. 95

         wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Don't know where you got your information, but it's a touch off.
         
         For a radio signal from earth (near one edge of the galaxy) to be nearing the other edge it would have to have been sent in about 98,000 BC, not 1950.  The galaxy is around 100,000 light years across; it takes light 100,000 years to cross it.
         
         And that's at the speed of light, which is about 9,460,800,000,000
         km/year, not 9.5 billion.  Unless I've slipped a decimal...

         replyreport
         1. 0

            jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Knock off 3 zeros and I think you get the 9.5 billion km. You have stated it in meters.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Then I did slip a decimal. 
               
               300,000,000 m/s / 1000 = 300,000 km/s
               300,000km/s X60s/m X60m/h X24h/d X365d/y=9,460,800,000,000 km/y
               
               Nope had it right.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Must go back to school when I get up to heaven!

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                       Doubt that we'll meet then - I think mathematicians go the other way.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        @  wilderness wrote:
                        
                            Then I did slip a decimal.
                        
                            300,000,000 m/s / 1000 = 300,000 km/s
                            300,000km/s X60s/m X60m/h X24h/d X365d/y=9,460,800,000,000 km/y
                        
                            Nope had it right.
                        
                           @   jonnycomelatelyposted 7 hours ago
                                 Must go back to school when I get up to heaven!
                        
                           @  wilderness wrote;
                                 lol  Doubt that we'll meet then - I think mathematicians go the other way.
                        
                           @  jonnycomelately wrote: 
                                So you think I will go up there riding on a white hearse, and you will go down into the mud on      a hypotenuse (that's equal to all the squares on the other rides)?

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Yep - already carved my name in my own hypotenuse, even.  But it's not equal - you'd have to cube the other rides to even come close.  Only the best for me!

                           replyreport
   3. 50

      parkavithaiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I believe life is their in other planets too like our Earth.  One day our scientist will prove the universal truth.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Nope.
      "Their" (lol) is no life on other planets.  At least no human life,  nor aliens as people think of aliens.   And if there is some kind of microscopic life, etc.,  it certainly isn't something that we need to be spending money on to find out about right now.
      'T'would be better spent on trying to find a cure for the delusions/mental illness of those who claim to have been abducted by aliens.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         While I'd have to agree about the "probees", I think it's just a wee bit early to make a bald statement that there is no life there.  Unless you've been there?

         replyreport
2. 63

   Brisbanelocksmithposted 11 years ago

   Possible, but not probable.
   
   We look at all the different species of plants and animals and think life is abundant.
   I think you have to look at life on our planet as a gauge of what might happen on similar planets.
   The problem with our planet is all life seems to come from the one origin doesn't it? It is all about cell replication and all life as we know it has the same cell replication and same origin.  It all has the same DNA origin.
   So if life on earth only happened once, how common is it on Earth? 
   If Earth has the optimal atmosphere and resources for life and it has happened her once in 3 billion years.
   Not very likely it would ever happen elsewhere is it?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      We don't know it only happened once.  It is entirely possible that other types of life (non-DNA) existed in the early days and died out from competition from our ancestors.  Or even that other DNA based life occurred but has been absorbed and are a part of our genetics.
      
      In addition, doesn't the fact that 100% or the planets we know have life say anything at all?

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Brisbanelocksmithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Good point. There could have been other types of life that died out. Absorbed? anything is possible.
         There is a lake in California that has a non carbon based bacteria type single cell organism.  I think it is contains arsenic? It might have came alive on its own? or have evolved from other bacteria? It is alone on this planet though.  Nothing else like it.
         
         Has life been found on other planets? I did not know that.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Just so.  There is some truly weird life out there on our own planet; life like nothing we are familiar with.
            
            Life that feeds off of sulfur and temperatures that would kill anything else.  Life that uses copper to carry oxygen.  Life that exists in pressures that instantly kill us and that does not use sunlight anywhere in it's food chain. 
            
            Nor have we found it all - we can't even guess at what we might find under the next rock right here on earth.

            replyreport
   2. 83

      mattforteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This argument is flawed in so many ways it isn't even funny.
      
      First off, we don't know if life only happened once. We don't even know for sure if all current life evolved from the same "first species." Is it likely? Yes - odds against it are 1 in 10 to the 6000th power. Regardless - this is the universe, and odds like that are commonplace.
      
      Next: It is incredibly likely that the organic molecules responsible for creating life on Earth came from....COMETS.
      If this is true, unless every comet in the universe avoided every planet in the universe except our own (Lawl), then it is not only possible, but *likely* that life has also formed elsewhere.
      
      Next: Earth is 4.54 billion years old. Life came about 1 billion years into that lifespan. Let's not ignore the important details! The beginning of Earth's lifespan was completely inhospitable for life (as we know it). It was a hot wasteland covered in magma...hell, at one point a large chunk of our planet was *sheared off completely* by a passing planetoid, resulting in what we now call the Moon. Good luck to any life form trying to evolve in a habitat where planets smash into each other.
      That said, life managed to make a home for itself relatively early, even after such a crazy start. That's pretty impressive, if you ask me.
      
      Next: The universe is HUGE. No matter what realistic odds you try to apply to the possibility of life, you can be assured there are probably more than enough planets to handle those odds. We have been searching for planets for but a small few years, have identified only a handful, and already have found some that are likely to be able to support life *as we know it* (Which will bring me to my next point). As it is, our search is only in a tiny fraction of a fraction of space, the odds of being able to find any habitable planets at all were at first thought to be astronomical - but we are finding that this is not the case at all.
      
      Next: "As we know it" it is hard to imagine something that is not known. Try and picture a color that you've never seen, and you can't do it. It isn't exactly the same, but a very similar situation for scientists. We can't imagine a form of life that doesn't have features at least remotely similar to those on Earth - but that doesn't mean they don't exist...we simply don't know how they would exist. Is it possible that there could be sentient life somewhere out in the universe that doesn't even have DNA? Well sure, it might be - but we will never know or understand it until we see it. This variable alone increases the odds of life, if only a little bit.
      
      Next: Scientists have found the planet Enceladus (orbiting Saturn) to be hospitable for some forms of life. Some believe it is even *likely* that there will be life there. Even if there isn't...that is like every grain of sand on a beach representing a planet/moon/asteroid/planetoid in the universe...picking up a single pinch of sand, and finding that 2 of them are hospitable for life. Either that is an incredible stroke of luck...or it is a lot more common than you think. (Special note: some scientists believe there is some form of life on Titan, due to a strange disappearance of hydrogen near the surface)
      
      To say "Not very likely it would ever happen elsewhere is it?" is a very uneducated, unscientific response. You would be hard pressed to find a professional in this field who would agree with that statement....and yet you - some online freelance writer - are so bold as to make a statement against the majority of the scientific community? I'm sorry - but you are making a statement based in mathematics, without actually doing the math.
      To think that we are the only planet in the universe bearing life is pompous and egotistical. Not only is that unlikely...but it is also likely that we are by no means the most advanced civilization in the universe. Are we being visited by E.T.? Probably not. Is he out there, somewhere wondering the same about us? Probably. Are there, at the very least, microorganisms scattered all over throughout the universe? Almost definitely.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Brisbanelocksmithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Matforte,
         Sorry to upset you so much.
         
         You can be pretty sure life all came from the same source as it has the same DNA structure.  I thought that was an "educated scientific theory"?
         
         "you are making a statement based in mathematics, without actually doing the math."
         The math is simple.  The only problem is if all life came from the 1 single cell organism then there is only 1 value you can use in the equation.
         
         If life started 1 time in 4 billion years, what are the odds of it doing this on any other planet?
         It is an unanswerable question. 
         But once in 4 billion years is not very common even on a planetary scale.
         
         "You would be hard pressed to find a professional in this field who would agree with that statement...."
         It is simple mathematics.  Even a 1st grader could understand it.
         
         LOL, I would like to see your mathematical analysis of life starting on Earth.  "Almost definitely" does not count.
         
         PS. It is very possible life could have started more then once on earth, it just is not hear now and there is no evidence of it.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            mattforteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Likely means likely. It does not mean fact.
            http://www.nature.com/news/four-strand- … ls-1.12253
            
            Fact: We clearly don't even fully understand our own DNA yet...just like we don't know where it came from.
            
            You also ignore my point - most of that 4 billion years Earth was not habitable...and everywhere on earth we find water, we also find life. That means where there is water....there is a pretty damn good chance there will be life elsewhere, even if only microbial.
            
            You also keep insisting that life started only once. There is zero proof to this, just like there is zero proof against it. With all the catastrophes in the history of Earth, microbial life very well could have started and been destroyed, leaving no evidence. That is an unknown variable that you can't ignore when you try to use history as a part of the equation. life didn't happen once on Earth - Life *might* have only happened once...and it *might* have happened more.
            
            You say you upset me, I'm not upset at all. Just trying to instill logic.

            replyreport
            1. 63

               Brisbanelocksmithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               There is good proof that life started only once.
               http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/n … -ancestor/
               There is no proof that it started in some other form and was destroyed.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  mattforteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I read that article forever ago. It has nothing to do with whether or not it started only once...it is simply evidence that it only *survived until today* once.
                  
                  So no...there is still no proof for either argument.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     "It has nothing to do with whether or not it started only once"
                     
                     OR that the descendents from a different lineage aren't still here.  With but a tiny fraction of the earth thoroughly explored it should not surprise anyone to find ever stranger and more exotic life forms on earth.  Even ones that started their own "life chain" but never managed to expand it much.

                     replyreport
3. 60

   ytsenohposted 11 years ago

   This is an age old question that certainly fuels a lot of conversation.  As a layperson, I have even wondered this.  My father used to say "Isn't it kind of selfish to think we are the only people in the universe?"  I think, like so many other questions posed relative to life and death, sometimes we think we know the answer, or we speculate, or we wait for proof, or we lean on faith to divert a fear.  I think Brisbane responded with interesting comments.

   replyreport
4. 91

   MizBejabbersposted 11 years ago

   I believe so. I think this planet was seeded from life on other planets. I believe in God, but I don't believe that God does everything supernaturally. After all, God has his/her own creation to evolve and spread. I have a friend who says that he and his late wife were abducted by aliens on more than one occasion, and he claims to have a small implant in his arm that they placed there. I can't vouch for this, of course, but I do know that he has a hard knot about the size of a tiny watch battery in this arm. These are down-to-earth people, college professors not kooks. Before she died of cancer, the wife wrote a couple of books about their experiences. Also, there are a lot of scientists much more knowledgeable than I am who say life exists outside our solar system. Who am I to question them?

   replyreport
5. 59

   Ivan Ivanovposted 11 years ago

   I'm sorry I have to rude, but after all we are writers here ... "Is their"????? .... My grammar is not perfect, but ... "is their" ...
   
   Regarding to the question "Is THERE life on other planets" ...
   
   I would have to say ... yes ... There is definitely life on other planets ... The universe is too vast to be uninhabited by other creatures ...

   replyreport
   1. 59

      alexabdaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Why should one care? Distances and time spans are so huge that existence of other life forms is equal to nonexistence.
      
      US nationals should not worry because they have nice men in black. They have been successful so far.
      
      Ivan, just like any Russian you care about grammer. Just to point out.

      replyreport
6. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 11 years ago

   The best proof that there is Intelligent Life out there is the fact it hasn't come here.

   replyreport
7. 60

   Zelkiiroposted 11 years ago

   I dunno about anyone else, but my life certainly isn't on other planets.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Zelkiiro, I am SO, So glad to know you are a down-to-earth type of guy.......it's so difficult to handle people with their heads in the clouds!

      replyreport
8. 58

   Jeramiposted 11 years ago

   I think that where there is matter, life force is present looking for a confortable place to rest it's head.
   
   Not exactly but kinda sorta.

   replyreport
9. 0

   khmohsinposted 11 years ago

   Those who believe life evolved on the earth usually see it as virtual ‘fact’ that life has evolved on countless other planets. Discovering life on other planets would in turn be seen as confirming their evolutionary belief.
   However, our thinking should be based on what God said He did (the Bible), and not what we think He would, should or might have done.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      mattforteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The earth is also flat and 4,000 years old. Can't forget those parts.

      replyreport
10. 60

    ContriveITposted 11 years ago

    One one hand I know it's impossible to prove there are other life forms out there so far. But, my intuition says not to be so gullible to think we are the only living things that possibly exist.

    replyreport
11. 56

    manjushasnehaposted 11 years ago

    Yes NASA should take it seriously and answer rightly to this question

    replyreport