What Star System do you think that ET could originate from?

reply to post by alextron


Hi there Alextron! Very detailed post. I'm not sure if it's rude to ask you how you know these things?

The one I'm the most curious about is this:

"Pollux- Red Ants'

Since Pollux was also mentioned by another poster as a good place to look for life, I just thought I'd ask. Red Ants? I've never heard of that description of an extraterrestrial before. Are they supposedly intelligent? Are they large or small? How do you know of them?

Sorry if my questions appear rude, I'm just really curious about what people might know, and I'd like to hear more about this particular reference.

-WFA

reply to post by alextron


Your post could be a starting point for astronomers, someplace they can aim their telescopes. One link that might help identify locations in southern hemisphere is: aliens.monstrous.com...
aliens.monstrous.com...

The Drake Equation allows for greater calculations of the mathematical probability that intelligent life exists beyond our frontiers.

51 Pegasi, Upsilon Andromedae, Epsilon Eridani, 55 Cancri, Rho Coronae Borealis, 16 Cygni B, 47 Ursae Majoris, 14 Herculis and Tau Boötis.

reply to post by Kinesis


Except for the problem that most of the stars he mentioned such as sirius and the pleiades cluster cannot support life.

However a list for starters is this list of the top 100 candidates for the TPF to examine, with zeta reticuli being number 57 on that list

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 29-3-2008 by SageOfWisdom]

Originally posted by SageOfWisdom
reply to post by Kinesis

 

Except for the problem that most of the stars he mentioned such as serius and the pleiades cluster cannot support life.

However a list for starters is this list of the top 100 candidates for the TPF to examine, with zeta reticuli being number 57 on that list

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok
This might be a bit obvious, but 'what' life can those stars not support, and on what basis?

reply to post by Balez



Sirius is too hot, and too big, also with a white dwarf orbiting it intelligent life probably could not have developed.

the pleiades cluster stars are less than 100 million years old, much too young. as well as being too hot.

Aldebaran is a red giant, also not able to support life. not too mention alextron is claiming to be a 6 billion year old alien, however I would Imagine a 6 billion year old ET would know how to spell Zeta Reticuli and Proxima Centuari.

Somebody explain how this guy receives two stars for posting obviously fabricated information with no evidence whatsoever?


[edit on 29-3-2008 by SageOfWisdom]

reply to post by SageOfWisdom


Sage, I assume you are stating that the Stars in the Pleiades were likely not the origin of planetary life because they haven't been around long enough?

If so, might I introduce this bit of research to your attention:

[Using the Gemini Observatory and NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, the researchers found that dust surrounding HD 23514, a star in the Pleiades that is slightly more massive and bright than our sun, is hundreds of thousands of times thicker than in our solar system.

While very young stars 10 million years old or younger are typically cloaked in thick dust clouds, HD 23514 is about 100 million years old, and its "primordial" dust should have long dissipated away. Thus, the dust that astronomers are seeing now is likely second-generation debris generated by the collision of large objects.

"In the process of creating rocky, terrestrial planets, some objects collide and grow into planets, while others shatter into dust," said study team member Inseok Song at Caltech. "We are seeing that dust."]

Source -
www.livescience.com...

Recent research tends to indicate that rocky planets like Earth could well exist in the Pleiades Cluster. Also, we have to keep in mind that there are well over 1000 stars in that cluster, probably closer to 1500 as current estimates go. Many of these stars are different, and there must be some that have habitable zones and some that have stable planetary systems.

Anyway, this research was just publicized at the end of last year, so I thought perhaps you hadn't seen it.

I don't have any direct knowledge about life in the Pleiades Cluster, but I wouldn't preclude it altogether from being possible at this point either.

-WFA

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar



Heads Up I added on to my above post.

And while life may be a possibility, intelligent life cannot develop in less than 100 million years. and intelligent life is very unlikely around OB associations like pleiades.

WFA, I gave your OP a star and flagged the thread, its an excellent thread even if some posts are off in the deep end.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by SageOfWisdom]

Thanks for the heads up, I didn't see it on first glance

Originally posted by SageOfWisdom
reply to post by Balez

 

Sirius is too hot, and too big, also with a white dwarf orbiting it intelligent life probably could not have developed.

Totally agreed as far as Sirius goes, although I can't say for sure until I've been there But seriously I don't think there is much chance of life near that Star.

Originally posted by SageOfWisdom
the pleiades cluster stars are less than 100 million years old, much too young. as well as being too hot.

That seems to be true, in context to your later post, however we don't have an absolute hard and fast rule on how long intelligence takes to develop. But that said, I generally tend to agree that it's unlikely. I guess I was just trying to point out that it could be possible.

In the interest of the main question in this thread though, you're most likely right that it's not likely to find Earthlike life on any of these stars, as compared to the likelyhood of finding Earthlike life in other more promising locales.

Originally posted by SageOfWisdom
Aldebaran is a red giant, also not able to support life. not too mention alextron is claiming to be a 6 billion year old alien, however I would Imagine a 6 billion year old ET would know how to spell Zeta Reticuli and Proxima Centuari.

Somebody explain how this guy receives two stars for posting obviously fabricated information with no evidence whatsoever?

I can understand your frustration here perfectly. Thanks for the info on Alextron, I wasn't familiar with the 6 billion year old alien claim.

Aldebaran is indeed a red giant, but aren't red giants just stars like our sun that have aged and expanded, on their way to 'star-death'?
I'm just asking, not trying to argue I've always heard that our Sun will eventually expand in this way, seeming to a possible observer from another world like the Sun could never have supported life...

Am I wrong there? I'm not entirely certain on this point, I'll admit.

-WFA

EDITED TO ADD:
By the way, thanks for your patience and for being such a good sport. I'm all about friendly debate, and none of us knows everything I'm open to learning even from people I don't like, but it's always nice to discover someone you can learn from that is personable and polite. That goes a long way and I appreciate it.
END EDIT.


[edit on 29-3-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


Alextron made the claim at the bottom of his post with the star list.

As far as red giants go, they are formed when stars stop fusing hydrogen, so they cool down and expand, this expansion usually envelops the previous habitable zone thus destroying all life. any advanced space-faring species would leave long before their star expands to become a red giant. They are cool but big, so the habitable zone becomes so close that UV rays become a serious problem.

Thanks for the friendly debate. and for the record, I do not disbelieve in ET intelligence, I just want to decide on a star within astronomical possiblities.

I think the better question, these days is how many could they NOT originate from?

We have a much larger than previously thought habitable zone, and we have but one star (that we can see anyway, lol) imagine a binary system, if all the planets were in the zone, wich is not unlikely even.

There are 2 major flaws with the good 'ol Drake equation that little 'ol me see's.

1. The assumption that radio waves are the best form of communication. Read a few articles about spooky physics, and quantum teleportaion, and you begin to see that we should have already moved long beyond radio comms.

2. The assumption that we are currently USEING the best possible comms, and by proxy, so too would ET be FORCED to use them as well. Seti is rediculaus when you consider these 2 facts as well.

I think Mars is teaming with life, Eroupa probably has a large sea eco system, and most outragously I suspect Uranus could also be harbouring large oceans heated from within and has possibility of life as well, not to mention the water mantel of pluto also heated by her molten core.

I think the myth that we are alone or that life its self has been propigated by humans with too much to loose if we started thinking for ourselves.

Originally posted by HellHound63S
I think the better question, these days is how many could they NOT originate from?

We have a much larger than previously thought habitable zone, and we have but one star (that we can see anyway, lol) imagine a binary system, if all the planets were in the zone, wich is not unlikely even.

There are 2 major flaws with the good 'ol Drake equation that little 'ol me see's.

1. The assumption that radio waves are the best form of communication. Read a few articles about spooky physics, and quantum teleportaion, and you begin to see that we should have already moved long beyond radio comms.

2. The assumption that we are currently USEING the best possible comms, and by proxy, so too would ET be FORCED to use them as well. Seti is rediculaus when you consider these 2 facts as well.

I think Mars is teaming with life, Eroupa probably has a large sea eco system, and most outragously I suspect Uranus could also be harbouring large oceans heated from within and has possibility of life as well, not to mention the water mantel of pluto also heated by her molten core.

I think the myth that we are alone or that life its self has been propigated by humans with too much to loose if we started thinking for ourselves.

Uranus is composed of Hydrocarbons such as methane and ammonia, with a water Ice core and rocky core beneath it.

with multiple fly-bys and analysis, I Believe by now we would know if there were large oceans.

What star system? Well for Greys it is the Milky way, namely earth, subterranean and same goes for reptillians.

The rest, who nows?

it all depends on which dimension you are on or which fluffy pollyanna you talk to.

Originally posted by spaceweaver
What star system? Well for Greys it is the Milky way, namely earth, subterranean and same goes for reptillians.

You're saying the Greys are not aliens then?

Yes, the Greys are alien in that they are not human but I do not think they are extra-terrestial.

Originally posted by spaceweaver
Yes, the Greys are alien in that they are not human but I do not think they are extra-terrestial.

I think you're confused.

If they are earthlings then they are not aliens. Not trying to get carried away with semantics, just trying to understand.

You made it sound like you had inside information..

reply to post by SageOfWisdom

Sirius is too hot, and too big, also with a white dwarf orbiting it intelligent life probably could not have developed.

Perhaps for a human species yes... Here we are still limiting ourselfs to what we know and understand, that does not mean that other lifeforms couldn't have evolved....

the pleiades cluster stars are less than 100 million years old, much too young. as well as being too hot.

That is highly dependent on the evolutionary process, not age.
Too hot for what? For us? Probably.

What exactly are we trying to find out there, really, another human colony?

Originally posted by Balez

What exactly are we trying to find out there, really, another human colony?

What I think we should do is narrow down which species of all the ones that are being described, are the ones we believe to be real. Or at the very least, the ones we feel more likely to be real compared to the other ones. For instance, I was abducted by Grey aliens so they would get my vote I personally don't believe in the red ants that were mentioned earlier

I think we should pick our top choices, then factor in their anatomy and physiology. From there we can decide from all the star systems mentioned, which planets and moons would be a good habitat for said alien species.

That's what I think we should do, imho

[edit on 073131p://30u03 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Balez

What exactly are we trying to find out there, really, another human colony?

What I think we should do is narrow down which species of all the ones that are being described, are the ones we believe to be real. Or at the very least, the ones we feel more likely to be real compared to the other ones. For instance, I was abducted by Grey aliens so they would get my vote

I personally don't believe in the red ants that were mentioned earlier

I think we should pick our top choices, then factor in their anatomy and physiology. From there we can decide from all the star systems mentioned, which planets and moons would be a good habitat for said alien species.

That's what I think we should do, imho

[edit on 073131p://30u03 by Lucid Lunacy]

Yes that could work, but really we should have something to limit the search however.
Our galaxy is quite big, even if would have an idea on an area in space where life could have evolved that is still like trying to find a needle in a haystack

Originally posted by Balez
Yes that could work, but really we should have something to limit the search however.

Limiting the search is what I was getting at

Our galaxy is quite big, even if would have an idea on an area in space where life could have evolved that is still like trying to find a needle in a haystack

Yeah it's not an easy prospect. I think the idea in this thread is to make an effort

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Balez
Yes that could work, but really we should have something to limit the search however.

Limiting the search is what I was getting at

Our galaxy is quite big, even if would have an idea on an area in space where life could have evolved that is still like trying to find a needle in a haystack

Yeah it's not an easy prospect. I think the idea in this thread is to make an effort

I know you were getting at that, but as my wit is fairly slow i need to see it in writing for my self so i can understand it

The problem is, there are so much that has to be factored in for a search to work.
We almost have to know under what circumstances life can evolve, and if that only should include ourself and our earth as basis for this search.
Should we put that limit on a search?

Just rambling....