distant planets

[Vaskez]

Originally posted by Iron Greasel: quote: Originally posted by Vaskez: quote: Originally posted by Iron Greasel: If there is life on one planet, there can be life on other planets as well. And as the number of stars in the universe is what it is, there must be life surrounding some of them.

doh! Doh! and DOH! It's as if I'd never posted... Why do I bother? I don't know.... bottom line is: it's not QUITE that simple Greasy [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Yes it is. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Life doesn't need all those things you listed, just space and some matter. In time this matter will form something that shapes other matter into copies of itself. The temperature numbers are only applicaple for carbon-based creature that need water to survive. And space debris can only harm creatures in they are small enough. [/QUOTE]LOL! I don't know what you are basing your writing on, but I'm basing it on scientific books and articles I've read...
Anyway, if all life needed was space and matter then every planet would have life on it [img]tongue.gif[/img] You couldn't be MORE wrong if you tried. [img]tongue.gif[/img] The only thing you are right about is that some forms of life can tolerate more extreme temps - some bacteria can survive almost down at absolute zero and some at hundreds of degrees Celsius, but if you make the temperatures too extreme things start to change form e.g. gasses become liquid at too low temps, or solids melt at too high temps - there are SOME basic requirements for "life" you know! Also LOL I didn't mean the space debris hits things on the planet and kills them. I'll elaborate. I've read that if Jupiter wasn't in our solar system to effect the path of asteroids etc. with its gravity, a lot more would be heading our way on the scale of the asteroid that mostly likely caused the climate change which killed off the dinosaurs. Therefore it is important for there to be a buffer planet to allow conditions to remain stable enough on a planet for life to evolve.

The more complex a lifeform is, the longer it takes to adjust to climate change (ever notice how larger, more complex forms of life seem to have longer generational cycles?) Therefore especially complex life needs very stable conditions (climate, habitat etc.) to be able to survive long enough for us to discover it, or just a long time period.

Also don't mean to laugh at you in a nasty way, but sometimes it's funny when people stick to ignorant viewpoints [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Oh Larry THANKS, are you sure there was not even a single other intelligent post I've written somewhere among the other 4000+??

[ 04-09-2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Vaskez ]

[Larry_OHF]

...are you sure there was not even a single other intelligent post I've written somewhere among the other 4000+??

No, I am quite sure... [img]smile.gif[/img]

But hey! What a great new beginning for you!

[Sir Goulum]

Originally posted by Iron Greasel: quote: Originally posted by Vaskez: quote: Originally posted by Iron Greasel: If there is life on one planet, there can be life on other planets as well. And as the number of stars in the universe is what it is, there must be life surrounding some of them.

doh! Doh! and DOH! It's as if I'd never posted... Why do I bother? I don't know.... bottom line is: it's not QUITE that simple Greasy [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Yes it is. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Life doesn't need all those things you listed, just space and some matter. In time this matter will form something that shapes other matter into copies of itself. The temperature numbers are only applicaple for carbon-based creature that need water to survive. And space debris can only harm creatures in they are small enough. [/QUOTE]That's what I don't get about these scientists. They're all out looking for an Earth like planet, with the assumption (or so it seems to me) that we are the only type of planet that can support life. How do we know that Venus or Pluto doesn't have its own forms of life?

[Vaskez]

What's the point in having a discussion if no one reads what you write? This is ****in pointless! As far as I'm concerned the issue you raise has been addressed Gouldum [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Sir Goulum]

Well, maybe I'm just tired, but looking over the topic again, I can't see where. And I see you misspelt my name. Intentional, I presume? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[shamrock_uk]

But there's no reason why such lifeforms have to be carbon-based - some scientists have even postulated the development of silicon-based lifeforms which would probably require conditions different from those in the traditional habitable zone.

Personally, I think its nearly statistically certain that life exists elsewhere. The chance of life developing is very small, but even if its one in a trillion, there's plenty of stars to go around

We always have the sub-surface Martian water to explore too. And then there's Europa too. Exciting stuff!

[Vaskez]

I guess it all comes down to how you define "life". However, the definition we were taught in school, or the way to remember the definition was to use MRS GREN: To be life it has to Move (not necessarily far e.g. plants), Reproduce, Sense (its environment), Grow, Respirate (whether that be aerobic anaerobic), Excrete and (get) Nutrition (somehow).

Yeah I suppose statistically, we could find other life that can do all that, even if it's not carbon-based. With the temp thing I was just saying that unless we go completely "out of this world" life will need not too extreme temps, cos elements start to change form e.g. at high temps, most things will melt except some metals (so you want metal-based lifeforms? [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) At very low temps, atoms don't vibrate very fast so nothing can HAPPEN - the creatures I mentioned, that can survive near absolute zero, go into a hibernation and don't do anything, are effectively dead until they sense that it has warmed up. You can't get away from the laws of physics and chemistry. THAT'S what I meant by saying, it's still pretty unlikely that the right conditions will arise elsewhere.

Anyone heard of the Drake equation? The problem with it is that if you plug in optimistic values for the variables you get something like (there may be 60,000 other planets with life out there) if you plug in the most pessimistic values, the answer for no. of life-bearing planets that comes out, is 1. Serious.

[Sigmar]

Cybertron exists...

I'm sure of it. [img]graemlins/biggrin.gif[/img]

[shamrock_uk]

And for those that haven't heard: Drake Equation

Thanks Vaskez, interesting posts!

Consider that the Drake equation only refers to our galaxy. So even the most pessimistic answer of 1 starts to look quite a lot when you consider how many billions of galaxies there are out there. Some of which are much more active in terms of star formation too. Just a shame we'll never see them!

Edits: In the article it mentions doubts over whether life-bearing planets would survive the formation of the solar system due to the discovery of massive gas giants in close orbits. Recent studies and simulations of these newly-discovered extra-solar planets seem to suggest that the gas giants sweep through the solar system comparatively early and therefore allow for enough debris to remain so that smaller planets can form in larger orbits.

[ 04-10-2005, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Iron Greasel]

Vaskez wrote: What's the point in having a discussion if no one reads what you write? This is ****in pointless! As far as I'm concerned the issue you raise has been addressed Gouldum

I read what you write, Vazzy, I just ignore most of it. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Vaskez wrote: Anyone heard of the Drake equation? The problem with it is that if you plug in optimistic values for the variables you get something like (there may be 60,000 other planets with life out there) if you plug in the most pessimistic values, the answer for no. of life-bearing planets that comes out, is 1. Serious.

Never heard of it. What were these most pessimistic values?

Vaskez wrote: LOL! I don't know what you are basing your writing on, but I'm basing it on scientific books and articles I've read...

I was thinking of the old monkey-typewriter-shakespeare thing. If one monkey can make it, why not two? And what do scientists know? Are they even sure where life comes from? If yes, please tell me.

Vaskez wrote: Also don't mean to laugh at you in a nasty way, but sometimes it's funny when people stick to ignorant viewpoints

It might be an ignorant and false viewpoint already proved wrong, but it's still my viewpoint.