Aliens

[Vince_Fiero]

I wonder if he thinks we should shoot at them first and ask questions later? Would you?

I just stumbled across the article and came to this thread.

His opinion is more "All resistance is futile" according to me.

You could compare it to the:
* The Romans spreading out in Europe (and beyond)
* Atilla the Hun going round
* ....

A slight advantage in technology and organization leads to a big advantage to control a large area.
He sees the probability that there is intelligent life out there, struggling for survival, as very high. And when we get involved in the struggle the probability we come out losing as equally high.

So avoid to get involved.
It is not clear to me if the messages we are sending in to space declaring what and where we are, are idealistic dreams (could go up to stupidity) or a message of hope that we find a strong partner to defend ourselves during the struggle to survive.

To put it in T.V. Series it just seems to me Hawkings believes the chances on E.T. or Vulcan like creatures less probable then ""Goa'uld" or Visitors from V.

 

[SpawnBlack]

There's life on Mars and any other Planet that shows a history of Surface life. If that life is not on the Surface then it is beneath the Surface and are Either Micro Organisms or just as big as us but we cannot detect them. Anyone who thinks that we are the only beings in this part of the Universe then your'e kidding yourself. If you think that we are the only ones in the Solar System then your'e really kidding yourself.

When a Spider crawls into your window up your wall along the ceiling do think its expecting to find an Ugly Human bearing down on it ready to kill it?? Nooooooo, I just hope that they are friendly and have a better government that we do.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18775-mysterious-radio-waves-emitted-from-nearby-galaxy.html

Hopefully sober but certainly puzzled British astronomers have detected a mystery object in a nearby galaxy. It is emitting a uniquely strong and steady radio signal, and apparently headed towards us at greater than light speed.

Apparently moving at greater than light speed - moving towards us quite fast, but not faster than the radio waves coming from it (otherwise we wouldn't detect them before it). But as the article notes, apparent above light speeds aren't exactly uncommon in the universe.

So it's kind of like those things are using the intergalactic Autobahn, then?

There are no aliens here. The superluminal mystery of M82, the Cigar Galaxy, is explained.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100503m82.htm

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Omnis]

According to the Deep Space Travel skit, everything is the same.

 

[Ardius]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...-alien-life-is-out-there-scientist-warns.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece

The science popularizer Stephen Hawking is warning that aliens are out there, but that we should not talk to them. He likens them to Europeans invading the Americas!


Edit: Now BBC is reporting this: "Prof Hawking thinks that, rather than actively trying to communicate with extra-terrestrials, humans should do everything possible to avoid contact."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8642558.stm

I wonder if he thinks we should shoot at them first and ask questions later? Would you?

Heh, Xenophobia perhaps? I have to say that any life that travels the great distances across space must have a damn good reason to do so. If we liken it to our situation currently, we have no technology for travelling across any part of space quickly and it is very expensive to do so. So for us to build any kind of ship which could sustain its passengers for extremely long periods of time would probably require dire circumstances such as the end of Earth/The Sun.
So, naturally any planet they did find that could support life would be quickly claimed, would we do it peacefully after such long journeys and no else to go?

Of course, if aliens had technology which could travel through space at ludicrous speeds then this wouldn't apply.

I think it would be very easy for us to be quite xenophobic though, its interesting to consider that despite finally ditching xenophobia between nations and races on Earth, its still very easy for us to get xenophobic about extraterrestrials.

 

[Dotini]

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=46983

"The three most abundant elements in the universe are, 1) hydrogen, which is highly reactive; 2) helium, which is non-reactive; and 3) oxygen, which is highly reactive. Hydrogen and Oxygen, the most abundant reactive elements, and extremely reactive at that, combine to form water at the slightest provocation. Cosmic Birkeland currents are surely more than enough to ensure the plentiful supply of universal water.

Water must necessarily be everywhere, on and in every planet and moon, every comet and asteroid, and throughout seemingly empty space. Water must have formed even before rock. One may expect that amazed investigators will find water literally everywhere they look."
-rjhuntington

It's almost assured that life, or its precursors and traces, will be found everywhere, as well. New research even hints at inorganic lifeforms. Prepare to be amazed.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/9/8/263/fulltext

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=46983

"The three most abundant elements in the universe are, 1) hydrogen, which is highly reactive; 2) helium, which is non-reactive; and 3) oxygen, which is highly reactive. Hydrogen and Oxygen, the most abundant reactive elements, and extremely reactive at that, combine to form water at the slightest provocation. Cosmic Birkeland currents are surely more than enough to ensure the plentiful supply of universal water.

Water must necessarily be everywhere, on and in every planet and moon, every comet and asteroid, and throughout seemingly empty space. Water must have formed even before rock. One may expect that amazed investigators will find water literally everywhere they look."
-rjhuntington

It's almost assured that life, or its precursors and traces, will be found everywhere, as well. New research even hints at inorganic lifeforms. Prepare to be amazed.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/9/8/263/fulltext

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

Yeeeeeeeeeeeah, but the mass fraction of oxygen in water is 8.1 times that of the mass of hydrogen (89%) and the mass fraction of oxygen in the universe is one 139th that of the mass of hydrogen (0.71%).

To put it another way, interstellar space contains about 1 atom of hydrogen per cubic centimetre - a million in a cubic metre. In that cubic metre of interstellar space, you'd find 7,000 atoms of oxygen. Even if you were to assume that all of them bound with the hydrogen, you'd have 7,000 molecules of water in that cubic metre. To find one gram of water you'd need 4,800,000,000,000,000,000 cubic metres - 4.8 cubic megametres.

Now, our Solar System is about 100AU in radius, and this equates to a volume of 14,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic megametres, so, if our entire Solar System was composed of interstellar medium (which it isn't - hydrogen density is less than a 250,000th of that in interstellar space, or 4 atoms per cubic metre), there would be just 3,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes of water in it. I say "just", even though that seems a lot, because that's the total amount of water one could expect to find in a ball of interstellar medium that light would take an entire day to cross. For reference, there's more than that just on Earth. That's right - the Earth alone contains enough water for an entire solar systems' worth of interstellar medium - and water's even less common within solar systems, with Earth alone holding enough water for 250 thousand solar systems.


Hydrogen might be the most common element in the universe and oxygen the third, but there's bugger all water out there.

 

[Touring Mars]

Doesn't the super-abundance of water on our own planet suggest that solar systems such as ours are very dissimilar to interstellar space? Given our extremely limited knowledge of the physical nature of the interstellar medium and the growing evidence for the abundance of water in our solar system (i.e. on the Moon, Mars, Europa etc., as well as our own vast quantities of water here on Earth), is it possible that your arithmetic may be slightly misleading?

 

[Dotini]

Hydrogen might be the most common element in the universe and oxygen the third, but there's bugger all water out there.

Note, from the article cited:
"Herschel is an ESA space observatory with science instruments provided by European-led Principal Investigator consortia, with important participation from NASA.

HIFI, a high resolution spectrometer was designed and built by a nationally-funded consortium led by SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research. The consortium includes institutes from France, Germany, USA, Canada, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Taiwan."

The Herschel HIFI team states:
"Water is an extremely important molecule in the Universe, abundant in a large variety of cosmic environments — from our own blue planet and its neighbourhood, the Solar System, through interstellar clouds where new stars and planets are formed, and even beyond the Milky Way, in star-forming galaxies. Due to the large amount of water vapour present in the Earth's atmosphere, however, astronomical observations of water from ground-based facilities are virtually impossible, even from the driest and highest deserts; they need to be carried out with space observatories."

Is Famine suggesting that the observatory, its operators or observations are defective?

With highest regards,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

Doesn't the super-abundance of water on our own planet suggest that solar systems such as ours are very dissimilar to interstellar space? Given our extremely limited knowledge of the physical nature of the interstellar medium and the growing evidence for the abundance of water in our solar system (i.e. on the Moon, Mars, Europa etc., as well as our own vast quantities of water here on Earth), is it possible that your arithmetic may be slightly misleading?

That's kinda the point - the Earth alone has so much water on it that it would account for an entire 100AU-radius ball's worth of interstellar medium - so for every one-of-our-Solar-System's-worth of interstellar space, there's one-Earth's-worth of molecular water if all the oxygen is bound to hydrogen in that medium.

Whereas outer space - the stuff within a solar system - has a molecular density of hydrogen 1/250,000th of that. So our Solar System contains 250,000 times more water just on Earth than a typical solar system's worth of solar system would.

Is Famine suggesting that the observatory, its operators or observations are defective?

You be giving me higher regards by reading both what you present and what I say.

 

[Dotini]

With rather more light and less heat, true scientists currently employed in the field investigating the cosmos agree that water is abundant in the universe, any dyspeptic blogging to the contrary notwithstanding.

http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1744&Itemid=2
"Water is relatively abundant in the interstellar medium and hydrogen atoms are extremely common, but there is a problem with the other vital ingredient for H2O. Gas phase reactions that can take place in the interstellar medium are limited by the low temperatures and pressures. Experiments show that it is possible for hydrogen atoms to combine with molecules of oxygen (O2) or ozone (O3) under the conditions of the interstellar medium. However, observations by recent satellite missions have detected very little gaseous molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) has never been detected at all in these regions of space. On the other hand, atomic oxygen (O) is quite plentiful, but gas phase reactions between hydrogen and atomic oxygen can’t account for the amount of water observed. Even the observed quantities of atomic oxygen suggest that some is ‘missing’ in star-forming regions compared to the rest of interstellar space.

Ms Frankland and her colleagues at Heriot-Watt believe the dust grains, which make up about 1% of the interstellar medium, hold the key by providing a surface that helps reactions take place. In addition, some molecules remain stuck to the surface, building up an icy coating over time. This coating, which is mainly water ice, can then play a role in reactions."

Victoria Frankland
Department of Chemistry
School of Engineering and Physical Sciences,
William Perkin Building,
Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
E-mail: vlf1@hw.ac.uk

NAM 2010 Press Office (12th – 16th April only)
Room G358
Gilmorehill Building
University of Glasgow.
Tel: +44 (0)141 330 7409, +44 (0)141 330 7410, +44 (0)141 330 7411

Anita Heward
Press Officer
Royal Astronomical Society
Mob: +44 (0)7756 034 243
E-mail: anitaheward@btopenworld.com


Edit 5/9/10:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/weird-charged-space-water-found-100507.html
Weird Water in Space is Electrically Charged.
"A new 'phase' of water that is electrically charged has been discovered in space for the first time.
The weird space water vapor was discovered in an interstellar dust cloud by the European Space Agency's Herschel space observatory.
Unlike the three more familiar phases of water – namely solid ice, liquid water and gaseous steam – this newfound 'phase' doesn't occur naturally on Earth. "


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100428142302.htm
Evidence of Water Ice and Organic Materials on Asteroid's Surface
"Josh Emery, research assistant professor with the earth and planetary sciences department at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, has found evidence of water ice and organic material on the asteroid 24 Themis. This evidence supports the idea that asteroids could be responsible for bringing water and organic material to Earth.

The findings are detailed in the April 29 issue of the journal Nature."

Water is Found on the Sun
http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=396
If water is found on our Sun, it will be found on every star in the universe.


Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it" -Albert Einstein.

 

[Dotini]

NASA photograph of an alien fossil from Mars.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043002000_2.html
A good deal of detail can be seen in the enlarged photo link, including appendages. NASA calls it a "biomorph".

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/30/abstract
This explains how a metazoan can live without oxygen.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

With rather more light and less heat, true scientists currently employed in the field investigating the cosmos agree that water is abundant in the universe, any dyspeptic blogging to the contrary notwithstanding.

Go back and read my post again. Look at the numbers - they aren't just decoration.

 

[Joey D]

And what's to say life needs water? Life on our planet evolved to need water, life on another world could have evolved differently.

 

[Dotini]

Go back and read my post again. Look at the numbers - they aren't just decoration.

Sorry, old boy, but you have really lost it. Why should anyone find credible the un-premised, undocumented arithmetic of an unemployable lab tech when confronted with the combined weight of empirical observations and peer reviewed research of the worlds top scientists in the field under study?

With all due and decent respect for the opinions of mankind,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

Sorry, old boy, but you have really lost it. Why should anyone find credible the un-premised, undocumented arithmetic of an unemployable lab tech when confronted with the combined weight of empirical observations and peer reviewed research of the worlds top scientists in the field under study?

Unemployable

Just read the numbers. I know you make a habit of not reading anything anyone's ever posted and just splurging your disjointed thoughts onto the page but, just this once, break the habit.

Perhaps than you'd note that nothing is confronting anything. My numbers and the scientists' reports do not conflict. In fact the only conflict is in your presentation of things (unless you think an upper bound of 3 thousand trillion tonnes of water in a space that is not even a tenth of a billionth of our galaxy is a nothingness, or that 7,000 atoms per cubic metre is a lot). Not a first there either.


And don't bother trying to insult me again. I did warn you before you went off for a break (having PMed me an apology) what would happen.

 

[Dotini]

Begging your pardon, guvnor, but you have said:

there's bugger all water out there.

I responded by marshaling credible evidence against your rather crude assertion. If logic and truth has any meaning at the GTPlanet forums, then I have won this particular debate.

In all politeness,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

Begging your pardon, guvnor, but you have said:

I responded by marshaling credible evidence against your rather crude assertion. If logic and truth has any meaning at the GTPlanet forums, then I have won this particular debate

Is a maximum of 7,000 molecules of water in a cubic metre more or less than bugger all?

Let's put the numbers in a comprehensible format. 7,000 molecules of water is 7X10^3. A cubic metre of nothing but water contains 3.3x10^28 molecules of water.

[show my working: Density of water at 4 degrees is roughly 1000kg/m^3; Number of molecules in 18g - roughly one mole - of water is 6.022 X10^23 (the Avogadro Constant)]

That is, the absolute maximum concentration of water in a cubic metre of interstellar medium is one two thousand million million million millionth less concentrated than in a cubic metre of water. This is what homeopathists would call a 25X dilution - and a 25X dilution has a 6% chance of containing one molecule of the original substance if one mole was used at the start.

If these numbers are too unwieldy, a drop of water is three hundred thousand million million million times bigger than the maximum possible amount of water in a cubic metre of interstellar medium.

And interstellar medium is 250,000 times more dense than space within a solar system.

And water isn't the only molecule you'll find in interstellar medium that contains oxygen. This list is slightly more expansive. Look for the "O"s.


You see, the problem is you're imagining a conflict where none exists and then insulting me for your own assumptions. Had you actually read my post and the numbers within you wouldn't have done this - that you still persist tells me that, despite signing your posts with "respect" and "regards" and "politeness", you still aren't giving me even the basic courtesy of reading what I've written before deciding I'm wrong and must be insulted.

So to that end I shall simplify, just for you.

• An upper bound of 7,000 molecules per cubic metre of space is an infinitesimally small concentration. It is so low as to be almost nothing - so almost that science mocks homeopathy for talking in such low concentrations.
• There's a lot of cubic metres in space, so the total amount is vast. Really, really vast.

Now do you see why there's no conflict?

 

[Dan_]

Oh boy, I was excited to join the discussion in this thread, but the last posts contain too much information to me.

Your guys are crazy, specially you indigo writer.

 

[Famine]

Sorry about that

The numbers to do with space are just huge though. I was running the numbers on the amount of mass in the Solar System compared to interstellar space and to find enough "stuff" in the interstellar medium to put together and make the mass of just the Solar System requires a cube of space which is 2.35 light years across each side.

Now I don't think anyone would say that there's not loads of mass in the universe - just check out all the stars and stuff - but similarly it's quite apparent that it's concentrated in small places (stars, for example) and to get similar amounts from the rest of space would require colossal distances. So it's both abundant and rare - there's piggin' loads of it, but it's quite tough to find and get at.

As with water, so with mass.

 

[Stevisiov]

And what's to say life needs water? Life on our planet evolved to need water, life on another world could have evolved differently.

That is what I used to think. The problem is definition of life, what we call living obeys a select group of rules, these rules are obviously based around the world around us and of course carbon based life forms.

One of the biggest problems is, if non carbon based life forms where knocking around somewhere, would we even recognise it as life? Could a computer (I guess we could call that silicone based) one day be considered alive? Under are current definition of life, no. Its possible in future a robotic computer with considerable artificial intelligence, may on the surface appear to look like a life form, it still wouldn't be considered alive.

 

[Danoff]

That is what I used to think. The problem is definition of life, what we call living obeys a select group of rules, these rules are obviously based around the world around us and of course carbon based life forms.

One of the biggest problems is, if non carbon based life forms where knocking around somewhere, would we even recognise it as life? Could a computer (I guess we could call that silicone based) one day be considered alive? Under are current definition of life, no. Its possible in future a robotic computer with considerable artificial intelligence, may on the surface appear to look like a life form, it still wouldn't be considered alive.

It's not like we defined life as something that requires water. We took a look at everything we could get a good look at, defined life, and tried to find a common thread. The common thread was a dependence on water. It's possible (perhaps probable) that eventually humanity will find something that fits the criteria of "life" that does not require water. But until then, looking for water seems to be the best hope for finding life.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's not like we defined life as something that requires water. We took a look at everything we could get a good look at, defined life, and tried to find a common thread. The common thread was a dependence on water. It's possible (perhaps probable) that eventually humanity will find something that fits the criteria of "life" that does not require water. But until then, looking for water seems to be the best hope for finding life.

So, my lifelong dream of riding a sandworm is very unlikely to happen?

 

[Famine]

Ooooh, I dunno. After all, if first you control the spice...

 

[Dotini]

The problem is definition of life, what we call living obeys a select group of rules, these rules are obviously based around the world around us and of course carbon based life forms.

One of the biggest problems is, if non carbon based life forms where knocking around somewhere, would we even recognise it as life?

It's not like we defined life as something that requires water...It's possible (perhaps probable) that eventually humanity will find something that fits the criteria of "life" that does not require water.

For those adventurous enough to contemplate life without water or carbon, there's this:http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/9/8/263/fulltext

Abstract. "Complex plasmas may naturally self-organize themselves into stable interacting helical structures that exhibit features normally attributed to organic living matter. The self-organization is based on non-trivial physical mechanisms of plasma interactions involving over-screening of plasma polarization. As a result, each helical string composed of solid microparticles is topologically and dynamically controlled by plasma fluxes leading to particle charging and over-screening, the latter providing attraction even among helical strings of the same charge sign. These interacting complex structures exhibit thermodynamic and evolutionary features thought to be peculiar only to living matter such as bifurcations that serve as `memory marks', self-duplication, metabolic rates in a thermodynamically open system, and non-Hamiltonian dynamics. We examine the salient features of this new complex `state of soft matter' in light of the autonomy, evolution, progenity and autopoiesis principles used to define life. It is concluded that complex self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter that may exist in space provided certain conditions allow them to evolve naturally."

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Dotini]

Civil officials in China were frightened enough to close an airport due to a UFO.
Read this balanced and informative story.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...e-fertile-ground-for-ufo-conspiracy-theories/

 

[Nicksfix]

Civil officials in China were frightened enough to close an airport due to a UFO.
Read this balanced and informative story.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...e-fertile-ground-for-ufo-conspiracy-theories/

Being dis-missed as a rocket ?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

For those adventurous enough to contemplate life without water or carbon, there's this:http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/9/8/263/fulltext

....

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

Dotini, where do keep digging these up?
Fascinating articles.

For Life it seems a Philosophical question: "Je pense donc je suis" René Descartes.
And there is not one Philosophy + Philosophy evolves. We have passed on from the 4 elements to quarks, etc...

From Wikipedia

In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.
...
A diverse array of living organisms (life forms) can be found in the biosphere on Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.
...
In philosophy and religion, the conception of life and its nature varies. Both offer interpretations as to how life relates to existence and consciousness, and both touch on many related issues, including life stance, purpose, conception of a god or gods, a soul or an afterlife.

So when is it alive: is any reaction sufficient?
Like a tree is alive since it grows, but it will not react like we would on "pain" or "life threat" like burning.

Is the planet earth alive? If so does that make all plantes, stars, etc... alive...

Why would earth be alive, Earth changes, if we believe in expanding/retracting universe, it will have several generations, it reacts on the influence of industry, ...

Just to make a point: there might be other then carbon/water life here with us, but just because it works on completely different timescales then us and does not interact in a way we see "life" should, does not mean it is not there, it just means we do not observe it.

So why do we look for "carbon/water life" forms, since we will understand them and have some idea what to look for. Who knows what we might find!

Sounds like a good discussion with some beer, but never a final conclusion would come according to me, like there will never be a final philosophy.

 

[Famine]

So when is it alive: is any reaction sufficient?

You've missed a key word:

Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.

All conditions must be satisfied to qualify as life.

Is the planet earth alive?

Does it undergo metabolism? No.
Does it maintain homeostasis? No.
Does it possess a capacity to grow? No.
Does it respond to stimuli? No.
Does it reproduce? No.
Does it adapt to its environment? No.

So is the Earth alive? Nope.

Things like "fire" satisfy most conditions (metabolism, growth, stimulus, reproduction, adaptation) but not one (homeostasis) and are not classed as life. Some things like viruses satisfy most conditions (growth, stimulus, reproduction, adaptation) but not some (metabolism, homeostasis) and are classed as life, so there really is no hard and fast rule except that if something does not meet any of those conditions or meets fewer than it does not, it is not alive.

 

[Stevisiov]

Why is it that fire isn't considered alive, and do you think it should be? I'm rather curious on this matter.