It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Credible Scientists Devise Mathematic Theory Leading to Panspermia - Pockets of Life Prevail

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JadeStar

But if and when we do find any form of life elsewhere, and its distribution fit the model it would indeed support the hypothesis. Equally, if no particular distribution is found, if life is just everywhere (or here and there) it would nullify the hypothesis. A hypothesis which can be both demonstrated and falsified, is a cool thing.


Would it really? Or would it just mean that it's possible that we just haven't found it, yet?

That's a serious question, because I always subscribe to the old cliché that absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence.




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: TrueBrit






The universe predates it by a significant period, therefore, your assertion is in error.





Ok so 2 + 2 = 5 is possible?


Maybe if two couples get together for a foursome and one of them gets pregnant, I guess?

Anyway, on Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey one of the episodes had an interesting segment on panspermia.

Would there be a way to determine, for whatever reason, that panspermia didn't come about by accident, but was done on purpose? Would the mathematical model be different?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: TrueBrit

Just read the article. I know we are going way off the topic lol. It's hard to explain what I mean since I am deaf. I rather sign it to you in ASL.


i get what you are saying.

but its beyond the scope of this thread.
and not too many can think laterally enough or abstract enough to try to evaluate 'our' 'interpretation' of math.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Junkheap

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: TrueBrit






The universe predates it by a significant period, therefore, your assertion is in error.





Ok so 2 + 2 = 5 is possible?


Maybe if two couples get together for a foursome and one of them gets pregnant, I guess?

Anyway, on Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey one of the episodes had an interesting segment on panspermia.

Would there be a way to determine, for whatever reason, that panspermia didn't come about by accident, but was done on purpose? Would the mathematical model be different?


According to research in the OP, no.

That's not to say that it would be impossible to tell, just that their particular model doesn't seem to show anything which would indicate a natural or artificial source of the spread of life.

I'm just starting my day and will be back this evening but one idea might be that if we closely examined the planets with life and found technosignatures, things which if detected could only be explained by technology present, ie: CFCs detected in planetary atmospheres, the signature of artificial light on a planet's night side, excess infrared for what would be expected to occur naturally, laser, radio or other signals, etc.


Thank might indicate a civilization which colonized a region, especially if there were similarities in the type of technosignatures detected perhaps due to the same technology in use on multiple worlds.
edit on 9-9-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

... This goes down as one of those days, where for all my ability to value the moment, I wish to be in the future, wish to be there, watching, ever watching, as these things happen.

I am hungry for the expansion of the human race through the galaxy, and for discovery of life else where. I feel fired up about this.

For once, the aching in my guts is not constant requirement for nutrition!



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Can 2 + 2 = 5 ? I couldn't say, but it seems that 2 x 2 can. A square on a flat plane, with sides 2 units long, is projected onto a positively curved surface. Won't the area of the square now be 5 square units, assuming the appropriate radius of curvature ?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JadeStar

... This goes down as one of those days, where for all my ability to value the moment, I wish to be in the future, wish to be there, watching, ever watching, as these things happen.

I am hungry for the expansion of the human race through the galaxy, and for discovery of life else where. I feel fired up about this.

For once, the aching in my guts is not constant requirement for nutrition!


Stay healthy and you will be in that future.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

Four hundred, perhaps five hundred years. That is how long I think it will take the feckless and wasteful idiots we refer to as the power elite to actually get around to properly beginning the expansion movement which will see our species begin to spread itself through space in a manner I consider acceptable, in terms of reach, speed, and purpose. I doubt I will be around for that!



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JadeStar

Four hundred, perhaps five hundred years. That is how long I think it will take the feckless and wasteful idiots we refer to as the power elite to actually get around to properly beginning the expansion movement which will see our species begin to spread itself through space in a manner I consider acceptable, in terms of reach, speed, and purpose. I doubt I will be around for that!


Well you could also look at it like this…. Imagine the days when Galileo first discovered the moons of Jupiter and all of the other exciting discoveries which followed the invention of the astronomical telescope.

You're living in what would be the equivalent to the golden age you imagine in 2515.

I suspect that people then will look at the early exoplanet research in much the same way. This is the era when we finally begin to get to know the habitable places in our neighborhood of the galaxy in intimate detail. And you'll be alive through it.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

But I will never get to visit these places, and I would argue that there can be no intimate knowledge of a planet, without having stood upon it. There will never be a time, for example, where a telescope of any power, no matter how sophisticated, will be able to resolve detail of a planetary surface from light years away, as well as my eye can from five feet and seven inches from the ground.

Galileo was a legendary guy, but I am willing to bet that if he was told that in time, man would stand upon the surface of our Moon, he would have felt cheated in living in the period in which he did, rather than during the 1960's!



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

I'm not adverse to the idea of intergalactic panspermia as long as the people pushing it also recognize that abiogenesis is also a thing. I mean the life had to come from SOMEWHERE originally, even if it didn't actually start on Earth.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JadeStar

I'm not adverse to the idea of intergalactic panspermia as long as the people pushing it also recognize that abiogenesis is also a thing. I mean the life had to come from SOMEWHERE originally, even if it didn't actually start on Earth.


They do. It would only be logical that even with as you said, intergalactic panspermia life would have to originate somewhere at some time on its own.

The two concepts are not mutual exclusive and both could be going on at the same time within our own galaxy.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JadeStar

But I will never get to visit these places, and I would argue that there can be no intimate knowledge of a planet, without having stood upon it. There will never be a time, for example, where a telescope of any power, no matter how sophisticated, will be able to resolve detail of a planetary surface from light years away, as well as my eye can from five feet and seven inches from the ground.

Galileo was a legendary guy, but I am willing to bet that if he was told that in time, man would stand upon the surface of our Moon, he would have felt cheated in living in the period in which he did, rather than during the 1960's!


Never say never.

Like I said, stay healthy and make money.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JadeStar

I'm not adverse to the idea of intergalactic panspermia as long as the people pushing it also recognize that abiogenesis is also a thing. I mean the life had to come from SOMEWHERE originally, even if it didn't actually start on Earth.


They do. It would only be logical that even with as you said, intergalactic panspermia life would have to originate somewhere at some time on its own.

The two concepts are not mutual exclusive and both could be going on at the same time within our own galaxy.


I know it may seem obvious, but I've seen it approached that these are two competing hypotheses. So, in the end, I feel it should at the least be said to set the matter straight.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JadeStar

I'm not adverse to the idea of intergalactic panspermia as long as the people pushing it also recognize that abiogenesis is also a thing. I mean the life had to come from SOMEWHERE originally, even if it didn't actually start on Earth.


They do. It would only be logical that even with as you said, intergalactic panspermia life would have to originate somewhere at some time on its own.

The two concepts are not mutual exclusive and both could be going on at the same time within our own galaxy.


I know it may seem obvious, but I've seen it approached that these are two competing hypotheses. So, in the end, I feel it should at the least be said to set the matter straight.


No problem. But both could be happening.

For panspermia to exist then life would have had to start somewhere at sometime. Presumably that process would be continuing to occur at various places right along side panspermia.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

To be honest, I like the idea of them being to ideas that work together. It makes more sense and allows for greater odds of life proliferating throughout the universe.

Cou ld meteor strikes on Earth have seeded life elsewhere in the universe? Microbes may have hitchhiked from our planet to others


Some scientists believe alien life was transported to Earth on a comet - a theory known as panspermia.
But if alien life can travel between planets, the opposite may also be true, and parts of Earth could be 'seeding' life elsewhere in the solar system.
The theory has gained traction over the past few years, with scientists claiming that the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs took Earth-life to Mars and the moons of Jupiter.


Heck, some scientists believe that life could have been seeded multiple times or arose multiple times (though they are relatively sure that only one of those incidents resulted in us). If that is true, it raises the odds of life forming here as a result of several attempts with only one succeeding instead of just one attempt that got crazily lucky.
edit on 14-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join