Are We Alone?

[konradv]

i KNOW what it means you dipshit

that in NO WAY eliminates the possibility of additional elements on other worlds

Yes it does eliminate the possibility, unless you think the laws of nature change when you leave our solar system. There are no other natural elements to be found. They're inherently unstable.

You sound like the guys who thought the Earth was the center of the solar system and universe.

NO, we sound like guys who know chemistry.

 

[konradv]

Of course then you need some rocks and lightning that way it can rain and rain on the rocks with a few shocks here and there. That will create life or at least so we are told.

That is certainly one possibility. I am a true scientist however so I am an agnostic. There is no proof for or against the existence of God. I respect all views and enjoy speaking with religious people about their beliefs as much as I do scientists.

my npoint being, on another world where argon gas was aprox 20% of the atmosphere and oxygen only a trace element, why wouldnt any life that was evolving breath Argon more than Oxygen

any true scientist wouldnt discount that as a possibility

A true scientist would know that Argon is an inert element, a fact that's true here and on the furthest galaxy. Sulfide has been mentioned as an alternate source and that's true, but look at the periodic table, it's right below Oxygen, so it's a no-brainer. Argon, on the other hand is all the way to the right with Helium, Neon, Krypton, Xenon and Radon, the other inert gases.

 

[saveliberty]

Yes it does eliminate the possibility, unless you think the laws of nature change when you leave our solar system. There are no other natural elements to be found. They're inherently unstable.

so, you are claiming there are no other natural elements to be found

do you even know there are places on THIS world people have never been?

YES, that's ABSOLUTELY true. Go ask a chemist. I'm sorry but Unobtainium will NEVER be found. All stable elements have been either found or synthesized. All other heavier elements are inherently unstable. You can search from the bottom of the sea to the most faraway galaxy and you WILL NOT find another naturally occuring element.

I think has been said about 40 times in the history of chemistry. Oops! More elements. There are many areas of the universe that gravity, radiation, and other influences are in what we would consider unnatural states. We don't even know what the universe looks like completely. A bit premature to call it settled science.

 

[westwall]

That is certainly one possibility. I am a true scientist however so I am an agnostic. There is no proof for or against the existence of God. I respect all views and enjoy speaking with religious people about their beliefs as much as I do scientists.

my npoint being, on another world where argon gas was aprox 20% of the atmosphere and oxygen only a trace element, why wouldnt any life that was evolving breath Argon more than Oxygen

any true scientist wouldnt discount that as a possibility

A true scientist would know that Argon is an inert element, a fact that's true here and on the furthest galaxy. Sulfide has been mentioned as an alternate source and that's true, but look at the periodic table, it's right below Oxygen, so it's a no-brainer. Argon, on the other hand is all the way to the right with Helium, Neon, Krypton, Xenon and Radon, the other inert gases.

So let me get this straight. You think that because a gas is inert it has no function? Correct? A Noble gas being inert can do nothing? Correct? Can't be a part of a living thing, can't help influence evolution etc.? Correct?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, for sure you are not going to be able to power biological energy exchanges with an inert element.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Absolutely. We have completely alien ecosystems here on Earth. The black smokers have tube worms and a whole host of other creatures that exist independant of the sun and photosynthesis. They have a completely foreign system that operates via chemosynthesis and they derive their nutrients fom sulfides.

What makes the Goldilocks region so important is the availability of liquid water. That is the significant factor. O2 is not the important factor.

Of course then you need some rocks and lightning that way it can rain and rain on the rocks with a few shocks here and there. That will create life or at least so we are told.

That is certainly one possibility. I am a true scientist however so I am an agnostic. There is no proof for or against the existence of God. I respect all views and enjoy speaking with religious people about their beliefs as much as I do scientists.

Sorry, but the definition of "true scientist" does not include agnostic. A "true scientist" is one who observes, hypothesizes and confirms through repeatable experiments. It is one who follows the facts regardless of the religious implications. That would mean that just because ID points to the existence of a god, doesn't mean that it isn't science.

 

[westwall]

Of course then you need some rocks and lightning that way it can rain and rain on the rocks with a few shocks here and there. That will create life or at least so we are told.

That is certainly one possibility. I am a true scientist however so I am an agnostic. There is no proof for or against the existence of God. I respect all views and enjoy speaking with religious people about their beliefs as much as I do scientists.

Sorry, but the definition of "true scientist" does not include agnostic. A "true scientist" is one who observes, hypothesizes and confirms through repeatable experiments. It is one who follows the facts regardless of the religious implications. That would mean that just because ID points to the existence of a god, doesn't mean that it isn't science.

ID is a THEORY. It doesn't point to anything. PEOPLE have made a point of figuring out how amazing intelligent life is on this planet and that is very, very true. But it all comes down to numbers. Could life originate on any one of a few trillion possible planets in the universe? The odds presented by the ID proponents say yes they can. 1 in a 100 billion I believe is the number that has been derived? So yes in fact it could be a random event.

And a scientist has three systems he/she can follow. Religious, Atheist, Agnostic. There is no evidence supporting God, nor is there evidence against. So a scientist who believes in the scientific method and simple logic, has but one choice and that is agnosticism. I value spirituality but I dislike those who would impose on me morals and ethics based purely on religion. I believe that mans social contract with one another can be just as strong and relevant without religion being involved. I view atheists as just as religious as their opponents just in a different way. They too want to impose their systems on me and I don't appreciate that either.

 

[Sallow]

Would be kind of a kicker if we were..alone. That would mean that this is the beginning of life..

 

[westwall]

Well, for sure you are not going to be able to power biological energy exchanges with an inert element.

Oh I wouldn't be so sure about that olfraud, not at all. This study has found that both helium and xenon enhance biological magnetic resonance which aids nuclear magnetic resonance experiments.

Enhancement of surface and biological magnetic resonance using laser-polarized noble gases - Brunner - 1999 - Concepts in Magnetic Resonance - Wiley Online Library

There have also been experiments back in the 1960's dealing with bioelectronics that used nitrogen.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now that is certainly a reach.

No, bluntly, no biological energy system is going to be based on an inert gas. Are there other gases that could possibly be used? Maybe. There are other gases that have valences that allow an energy exchange. Unlike the inert gases.

 

[uscitizen]

One thing, if man never develops a faster than light travel then life elsewhere is totally irrelevant.

 

[westwall]

Now that is certainly a reach.

No, bluntly, no biological energy system is going to be based on an inert gas. Are there other gases that could possibly be used? Maybe. There are other gases that have valences that allow an energy exchange. Unlike the inert gases.

Way back in 1932 they were looking at the exchange of energy between helium and a solid. You need to get out more. One should not get in the habit of saying never. They are usually proven wrong.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

They've also figured out that by using Argon they make a more powerful metal based rocket fuel.

High energy fuel gel slurries - US 5597947

 

[konradv]

my npoint being, on another world where argon gas was aprox 20% of the atmosphere and oxygen only a trace element, why wouldnt any life that was evolving breath Argon more than Oxygen

any true scientist wouldnt discount that as a possibility

A true scientist would know that Argon is an inert element, a fact that's true here and on the furthest galaxy. Sulfide has been mentioned as an alternate source and that's true, but look at the periodic table, it's right below Oxygen, so it's a no-brainer. Argon, on the other hand is all the way to the right with Helium, Neon, Krypton, Xenon and Radon, the other inert gases.

So let me get this straight. You think that because a gas is inert it has no function? Correct? A Noble gas being inert can do nothing? Correct? Can't be a part of a living thing, can't help influence evolution etc.? Correct?

I say they can't be used as a gas to support life. They're non-reactive in normal chemical processes. They can be used in things like flourecscent bulbs, but they do not change. For a gas to be usable the way we use oxygen, there has to be the possibility of a chemical change. The few compounds that have been made with the nobvle gases are inherently unstable and curiosities in the chemical world, nothing more.

 

[konradv]

so, you are claiming there are no other natural elements to be found

do you even know there are places on THIS world people have never been?

YES, that's ABSOLUTELY true. Go ask a chemist. I'm sorry but Unobtainium will NEVER be found. All stable elements have been either found or synthesized. All other heavier elements are inherently unstable. You can search from the bottom of the sea to the most faraway galaxy and you WILL NOT find another naturally occuring element.

I think has been said about 40 times in the history of chemistry. Oops! More elements. There are many areas of the universe that gravity, radiation, and other influences are in what we would consider unnatural states. We don't even know what the universe looks like completely. A bit premature to call it settled science.

I think you need to take a chem course. Got a cite for your "40 times"? If you knew any chem at all, you'd realize what you're proposing is an impossibility in this universe. All the trans-uranium elements are radioactive, many are solely man-made creations with half lives less than a second. No chemical theory I know of predicts any elements beyond those natural or man-made that would be stable.

 

[konradv]

Well, for sure you are not going to be able to power biological energy exchanges with an inert element.

Oh I wouldn't be so sure about that olfraud, not at all. This study has found that both helium and xenon enhance biological magnetic resonance which aids nuclear magnetic resonance experiments.

Enhancement of surface and biological magnetic resonance using laser-polarized noble gases - Brunner - 1999 - Concepts in Magnetic Resonance - Wiley Online Library

There have also been experiments back in the 1960's dealing with bioelectronics that used nitrogen.

Magnetic resonance uses aren't life. They don't depend on chemical changes, but electron valence changes, that return to rest state after the power is switched off. You can't build a biological system on that.

 

[saveliberty]

YES, that's ABSOLUTELY true. Go ask a chemist. I'm sorry but Unobtainium will NEVER be found. All stable elements have been either found or synthesized. All other heavier elements are inherently unstable. You can search from the bottom of the sea to the most faraway galaxy and you WILL NOT find another naturally occuring element.

I think has been said about 40 times in the history of chemistry. Oops! More elements. There are many areas of the universe that gravity, radiation, and other influences are in what we would consider unnatural states. We don't even know what the universe looks like completely. A bit premature to call it settled science.

I think you need to take a chem course. Got a cite for your "40 times"? If you knew any chem at all, you'd realize what you're proposing is an impossibility in this universe. All the trans-uranium elements are radioactive, many are solely man-made creations with half lives less than a second. No chemical theory I know of predicts any elements beyond those natural or man-made that would be stable.

I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet. Chemical theory is settled science in your mind. Then why is it still theory?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

One thing, if man never develops a faster than light travel then life elsewhere is totally irrelevant.

Not really. Time dilation actually works in our factor for colonization of the universe. The closer to c you get, the more time slows. While it means that meaningful communication with our own colonies could take generations, it does mean that a person could reach distant planets in their own lifetime if they can get up to a meaningful percentage of c. The greater the distance, the bigger the percentage.

By that same argument, they could theoretically reach us. It would just be a lot of effort.

I suggest you read some of Alastair Reynold's fantastic Revelation Space trilogy. Reynolds is a sci-fi author that worked for the EU space agency and doesn't believe that we'll find a way to break c. That doesn't stop him from laying out an amazing interstellar opera.

 

[konradv]

I think has been said about 40 times in the history of chemistry. Oops! More elements. There are many areas of the universe that gravity, radiation, and other influences are in what we would consider unnatural states. We don't even know what the universe looks like completely. A bit premature to call it settled science.

I think you need to take a chem course. Got a cite for your "40 times"? If you knew any chem at all, you'd realize what you're proposing is an impossibility in this universe. All the trans-uranium elements are radioactive, many are solely man-made creations with half lives less than a second. No chemical theory I know of predicts any elements beyond those natural or man-made that would be stable.

I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet. Chemical theory is settled science in your mind. Then why is it still theory?

Why are you dodging the question I asked? I never said anything about there being a "chemical theory". I said there was NO such theory. Yes, unless you have some theory of your own, the fact that there are no more naturally occuring elements to be found IS settled science.

 

[saveliberty]

I think you need to take a chem course. Got a cite for your "40 times"? If you knew any chem at all, you'd realize what you're proposing is an impossibility in this universe. All the trans-uranium elements are radioactive, many are solely man-made creations with half lives less than a second. No chemical theory I know of predicts any elements beyond those natural or man-made that would be stable.

I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet. Chemical theory is settled science in your mind. Then why is it still theory?

Why are you dodging the question I asked? I never said anything about there being a "chemical theory". I said there was NO such theory. Yes, unless you have some theory of your own, the fact that there are no more naturally occuring elements to be found IS settled science.

Seriously? Thanks for making it easy.

 

[konradv]

I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet. Chemical theory is settled science in your mind. Then why is it still theory?

Why are you dodging the question I asked? I never said anything about there being a "chemical theory". I said there was NO such theory. Yes, unless you have some theory of your own, the fact that there are no more naturally occuring elements to be found IS settled science.

Seriously? Thanks for making it easy.

You really ARE clueless on this subject, aren't you? Why haven't you answered my question? The only thing I've made easy is everybody's realization that you don't understand chemistry or that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the universe.