There HAS to be life on other planets..

[TheParser]

IF there is life on other planets, I sure hope that they have strict immigration laws to prevent the entrance of even one of those horrible human beings from Earth.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

IF there is life on other planets, I sure hope that they have strict immigration laws to prevent the entrance of even one of those horrible human beings from Earth.

70,000 years to the nearest star, I don't think they have to worry

 

[22lcidw]

No, elements and molecules have the same properties everywhere.

Too cold, and chemical reactions won't take place. Too hot, and the materials needed for life break down. Too much radiation and these element break down. The entire universe adheres to these laws

There was an old Star Trek episode that had a different spiel. We see life as Carbon based. I think they saw a creature as Silicon based. Science fiction show I know.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Methane isn't an oxidizer and sulfuric acid is deadly to organic matter. Certain conditions must be met for even the simplest life to survive. The methane lakes of Titian cannot support life because it does not have the unique properties of water. Just any liquid will no do.

Then we can look at one of the roughly 50 billion planets just in the milky way that have liquid water.

 

[Donald H]

A realistic measure of whether or not there is life on other planets is modern science's failure to create life. Barring the possibility of life on earth finding it's way to other planets.

The question has nothing to do with religion's superstitious beliefs.

 

[Donald H]

A realistic measure of whether or not there is life on other planets is modern science's failure to create life. Barring the possibility of life on earth finding it's way to other planets. Not to suggest that science won't succeed.

The question has nothing to do with religion's superstitious beliefs.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

It is very possible that we are alone. I personally find it improbable, but that is just my thoughts. That’s why I asked you all for your thoughts. The possibility intrigues me

I believe humans are in our infancy when it comes to our understanding of the universe. I can accept that the probability of us meat sacks on Earth being "visited" by an extra planetary species is highly unlikely, damn near improbable, at least within mine or several lifetimes.

I'm okay with this.

What if humans become a species that turns out to be the "visitors"?

My theories are more optimistic and based on current science. The probabilities for human evolution to get a better handle on our universe are indeed infinite. In a blip of time, we developed telescopic technology, then learned how to fly. Step one. Then successful manned missions to another celestial body in space (moon landing). Incredible. An exciting milestone for humanity.

We can see farther into our galaxy and beyond more than ever before because we learned how to launch telescopes into space. We used remote (drone/lander/satellite) technology to reach Mars. We can now see other planets clearly enough to detect a plausibility of sustaining life elsewhere. Impressive.

Even with these impressive advancements in human technology, we are still in our infancy in understanding our universe.

We understand propulsion systems and manned spacecraft to a point. At least enough to get beyond Earth's atmosphere, but we aren't even scratching the surface when it comes to fully understanding the practicality and physics of moving across the vastness of just our solar system, and how it could affect the human body. This is where theory/science fiction tries to fill in the blanks.

I'm okay with this too.

Theoretically, a successful manned round trip to Mars, Earth's closest planet, btw, barring absolutely no roadblocks, including perfect orbital trajectories going/coming from both planets, would cover approximately 600 million miles and take more than a year and a half. Now that's just the trip itself. It doesn't include surfacing the planet or duration of time spent upon the planet. The spacecraft would have to store enough fuel, life support and supplies for at least that. We're talking the largest cruise ship in the world, upsize it x10, and be able to launch it into space. Massive scale. But lots of missing pieces of the puzzle. The cost of such an endeavor would be incalculable to us presently.

So, whatever extra planetary activity happens with/on Earth won't happen in my lifetime, or likely 50 lifetimes. But it could happen someday. And it is theory that keeps me optimistic. We are currently in our infancy of understanding wormholes, but imagine if we could learn how to harness them to travel vast distances within the same dimension. Or using the most common element in the universe, hydrogen, as a seemingly endless source of propulsion for interstellar spacecraft transport. The possibilities are endless.

My beliefs revolve around logic, and logically, there has to be life out there on other planets. Have I seen any formidable proof as of yet? Do I believe the gov't is hiding little green men in secret bunkers?

Sadly, no. But I'm optimistic. Someday, perhaps.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

The thing that atheists miss is preparing for the afterlife is also what makes for the best possible earthly life.
Love, humility, serving others, self-sacrifice, doing right.

That doesn't mean anything beyond basic animal instinct. Do good, get a reward. It is fundamentally uncurious.

 

[Donald H]

I believe humans are in our infancy when it comes to our understanding of the universe. I can accept that the probability of us meat sacks on Earth being "visited" by an extra planetary species is highly unlikely, damn near improbable, at least within mine or several lifetimes.

I'm okay with this.

What if humans become a species that turns out to be the "visitors"?

My theories are more optimistic and based on current science. The probabilities for human evolution to get a better handle on our universe are indeed infinite. In a blip of time, we developed telescopic technology, then learned how to fly. Step one. Then successful manned missions to another celestial body in space (moon landing). Incredible. An exciting milestone for humanity.

We can see farther into our galaxy and beyond more than ever before because we learned how to launch telescopes into space. We used remote (drone/lander/satellite) technology to reach Mars. We can now see other planets clearly enough to detect a plausibility of sustaining life elsewhere. Impressive.

Even with these impressive advancements in human technology, we are still in our infancy in understanding our universe.

We understand propulsion systems and manned spacecraft to a point. At least enough to get beyond Earth's atmosphere, but we aren't even scratching the surface when it comes to fully understanding the practicality and physics of moving across the vastness of just our solar system, and how it could affect the human body. This is where theory/science fiction tries to fill in the blanks.

I'm okay with this too.

Theoretically, a successful manned round trip to Mars, Earth's closest planet, btw, barring absolutely no roadblocks, including perfect orbital trajectories going/coming from both planets, would cover approximately 600 million miles and take more than a year and a half. Now that's just the trip itself. It doesn't include surfacing the planet or duration of time spent upon the planet. The spacecraft would have to store enough fuel, life support and supplies for at least that. We're talking the largest cruise ship in the world, upsize it x10, and be able to launch it into space. Massive scale. But lots of missing pieces of the puzzle. The cost of such an endeavor would be incalculable to us presently.

So, whatever extra planetary activity happens with/on Earth won't happen in my lifetime, or likely 50 lifetimes. But it could happen someday. And it is theory that keeps me optimistic. We are currently in our infancy of understanding wormholes, but imagine if we could learn how to harness them to travel vast distances within the same dimension. Or using the most common element in the universe, hydrogen, as a seemingly endless source of propulsion for interstellar spacecraft transport. The possibilities are endless.

My beliefs revolve around logic, and logically, there has to be life out there on other planets. Have I seen any formidable proof as of yet? Do I believe the gov't is hiding little green men in secret bunkers?

Sadly, no. But I'm optimistic. Someday, perhaps.

As long as science can't create life in a lab then your logic isn't applicable. The benefit of the doubt would go the Christian's creator perhaps? Sans the bible nonsense of course.
If science can then your logic is unquestionable!

Can there be a discussion for a change?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

As long as science can't create life in a lab then your logic isn't applicable. The benefit of the doubt would go the Christian's creator perhaps? Sans the bible nonsense of course.
If science can then your logic is unquestionable!

Can there be a discussion for a change?

Absolutely. I suppose it would also depend upon what 'creating life in a lab' means to you. Is AI life? In theory it is a consciousness, although currently in digital persona, unfettered by direct human intervention. AI can control robotics, so it can take physical shape. AI is science. AI was created in a lab.

What about IVF? Is that not creating, or at least engineering life in a lab? You have to provide the parameters of your own logic.

 

[ding]

A realistic measure of whether or not there is life on other planets is modern science's failure to create life.

I don't believe life existing on other planets is dependent upon our creating life from inanimate matter in a laboratory. I don't see how they are related at all.

 

[ding]

The question has nothing to do with religion's superstitious beliefs.

Pondering origin questions is not a religious superstition. It's a philosophical thought exercise.

 

[zaangalewa]

... It would almost seem impossible that what happened on on earth didn’t also happen somewhere else, or in many different places. ...

The Earth is a double planet system. A "big thing" hit the Earth in the beginning and the moon swapped out. Slowly - very very slowly - the moon get's a bigger distance. Nearly exactly 1.5 inch every year. Unbelievable stable orbit. Once a coin felt out of my hand and landed at the rim and stood stable. This is a daily event compared with this distater and the very soft reaction of all this explosively separated masses and their orbits. The mass of both turns around the sun directly in the middle of a habitable zone where water is able to be fluid but the gravitation on Earth is not so high as the gravitation Moon and Earth together and is big tides. This is only one factor of a probability near 0. But this stability was necessary so multi-cellular organisms had a chance to be formed about 500 million years ago.

And this is only one of many probabilities in the size of nearly 0. And all this "nearly impossibilities" have to be multiplied with other nearly zeroes.

"Nearly no probability" times "nearly never ending possibilities" is able to have whatever result. We know it is equal or greater than one. But this we know only on reason of the anthropic principle = because we know that we exist. But what do we know about the existence of another "intelligent" species? Exactly nothing!

 

[zaangalewa]

My question is: Is the universe infinite?

It is flat, so it is infinite - mathematically. On the other side the space expands - from all points into all directions - physically. Together this could mean the universe is infinitely full of centres.

 

[zaangalewa]

What we forget though, is that these possible living entities out there (Aliens), could have had a billion or two billion more years to develop greater and much more advanced technologies, and travelling means than we could ever imagine in that amount of time, IF they are really out there, somewhere, over the rainbow!

Yes. But our own galaxy is one of the oldest. So where are they if not here? In Russia?

 

[zaangalewa]

I’m just saying that the laws of physics “might” work differently outside of our observable universe.

The only problem: Our universe on its own has no outside. And outside of the observable universe in regions which we never will know could be indeed other natural laws - but how to know? Why nowhere in the observable part? Is the moon here even when nobody is watching it?

 

[zaangalewa]

What makes you think Atheists don’t have those values?
They embrace them because it is the right thing to do, not because they fear God or expect some reward

Why is what "the right thing to do" for an atheist (=someone who denies spirituality)?

 

[Donald H]

I don't believe life existing on other planets is dependent upon our creating life from inanimate matter in a laboratory. I don't see how they are related at all.

Actually they're not. You've misunderstood my point. The difficulty or near impossibility of creating life in a lab would be related to the improbability of life being created accidentally in nature in many locations that we are able to access
.
And alternatively, if life is created in a lab more easily then that would relate to it happening in nature more often. That could mean that we're more likely to find life in the foreseeable future.

And of course we both know that the Adam and Eve story is not meant to be true, co we can open up our minds to thinking in terms of evolution.

 

[ding]

Actually they're not. You've misunderstood my point. The difficulty or near impossibility of creating life in a lab would be related to the improbability of life being created accidentally in nature in many locations that we are able to access

Accidentally? I've been arguing for quite some time now, that life and intelligence is built into the fabric of matter/energy and that given the right conditions and enough time, beings that know and create will eventually arise.

 

[Donald H]

Absolutely. I suppose it would also depend upon what 'creating life in a lab' means to you. Is AI life? In theory it is a consciousness, although currently in digital persona, unfettered by direct human intervention. AI can control robotics, so it can take physical shape. AI is science. AI was created in a lab.

What about IVF? Is that not creating, or at least engineering life in a lab? You have to provide the parameters of your own logic.

I don't see any reason to discuss this with you if you haven't been able to define for yourself what creating life in a lab means.

Come back to the discussion and then maybe ...............