Alien life on distant or extra-solar planets

I have for some time been considering the possibility of life occurring in the universe. Most people assume that the most prerequisite circumstance should be the proximity of a planet or similar body to a star. However IMHO the distance from a star may not be such a big issue. There are creatures on Earth that have no need for the light of the sun such as the sulphur based creatures that live around deep sea volcanic vents. (Which rather interestingly although somewhat unrelatedly have evolved along a very similar path to their carbon based cousins.) Some degree of heat I believe would be necessary but there is no reason why this could not be geothermic rather than solar. This coupled with a reasonably thick sulphur dioxide or carbon dioxide rich atmosphere to retain the heat given off by the planet itself could feasibly serve as a platform for the development of life.

Of course this is at this time purely speculative but if it were to be true, which I have a sneaking suspicion to be the case then it could realistically massively increase the chances of the likelihood of reasonably proximate life, possibly although not likely, within our own solar system.

There's been speculation that Ganymede could possibly contain some form of life below the surface for some time (2010, anyone?).

Good points. I wonder how much this would change the ~50K intelligent, communicative civilizations in our galaxy according to the Drake Equation, if at all.

reply to post by thrashee



yeah thats one thing that I had wondered myself.

There's theories that life came here (via asteroids), and that life existed elsewhere before here. There's too many stars and planets for the chemicals of life not to be on other planets, and likely in rock pools, life has formed there. All we have to do is create worm holes and we will know. All we have to do......

Maybe it's naive to assume that every life-form in the universe will be carbon and oxygen based. Your points are very well made and remind of the very nice sci-fi short dialogue. Sometimes I wonder if aliens have even remotely the same scale as we (as in size) or even sense the time as we do. I know for fact that many living organisms in earth do not (try to catch a fly).

It's funny how some of us take it for granted that aliens will have eyes, ears and legs when even humanity its-self has created self propagating computer viruses.

Peter

reply to post by digdeep


Star and Flag!

Very good thread. However, "sulfur-based" isn't entirely accurate. While some organisms have been discovered which are dependent on sulfur they all have some dependency on carbon as well.

You might find this article to be a (short) interesting read...

It is definitely worth considering that other options do exist besides water and carbon. Alternative biochemists speculate that there are several atoms and solvents that could potentially spawn life.

Non-Carbon Lifeforms -Why We May Overlook Extra-terrestrial Life

I found an interesting website that actually let's you tweak the variables in Drake's Equation:

www.activemind.com...

Originally posted by thrashee
There's been speculation that Ganymede could possibly contain some form of life below the surface for some time (2010, anyone?).

Ganymede? No, Europa.
Active volcanoes can make even the coldest moon warm enough for liquid water. So yes, good point OP.

Originally posted by ppolitop
Sometimes I wonder if aliens have even remotely the same scale as we (as in size) or even sense the time as we do. I know for fact that many living organisms in earth do not (try to catch a fly).

It's funny how some of us take it for granted that aliens will have eyes, ears and legs when even humanity its-self has created self propagating computer viruses.

As far as I know the flys simply react much faster because their synapse lengths are tiny relative to ours, just as in humans the bigger the person the slower their average reactinon times.

The configuration of eyes noses mouths etc seems to be a natural default as these can be seen repeated in nature time and again across completely unrelated species like mammals, birds and fish and even in sulphur based organisms that have evolved parallel to more common carbon based terrestrial species.

Bipedalism amongst intelligent species I also believe to be likely as the natural default at least in mammalian terms is to be quadrapedal but in order to advance beyond a certain level a great deal more dexterity is required than can be offered by just the use of a mouth and legs. (Try connecting a plug to a flex with your feet or your teeth.) This is overcome by becoming bipedal and freeing up the "front" limbs to be used for more cerebrally advanced tasks.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by digdeep

 

Star and Flag!

Very good thread. However, "sulfur-based" isn't entirely accurate. While some organisms have been discovered which are dependent on sulfur they all have some dependency on carbon as well.

You might find this article to be a (short) interesting read...

It is definitely worth considering that other options do exist besides water and carbon. Alternative biochemists speculate that there are several atoms and solvents that could potentially spawn life.

Non-Carbon Lifeforms -Why We May Overlook Extra-terrestrial Life

Thankyou, I stand corrected but my point remains.

:-)

Doh! You're right

Originally posted by nablator

Active volcanoes can make even the coldest moon warm enough for liquid water. So yes, good point OP.

Incorrect.

With the exception of IO,the vast amount of volcanism found on other active planetary satellites is Cryovolcanism,basically freezing eruptions.This happens due to contaminants in the ice,like ammonia,which can create a volatile liquid `melt` at -85 c or lower.This is fundamentally different than silicate based eruptions.

Two fundamental factors in liquid water are atmosphere,and atmospheric pressure,volcanism on its own means nothing.The reason ice sublimates on Mars bypassing liquid state is due to low atmospheric pressure..There is no other planetary body in the Solar System when liquid water exists on the surface.

The reason for Europa`s under-surface ocean is Tidal heating and orbital resonance.

As far as I know the flys simply react much faster because their synapse lengths are tiny relative to ours, just as in humans the bigger the person the slower their average reaction times.

This is just one factor, as far as I know flies experience time a lot "slower" than we do. You must also have in mind, that in order to avoid your hand, a fly has to cover the distance of several times it's own size - e.g. imagine you running away from godzilla.

The configuration of eyes noses mouths etc seems to be a natural default as these can be seen repeated in nature time and again across completely unrelated species like mammals, birds and fish and even in sulphur based organisms that have evolved parallel to more common carbon based terrestrial species.

You are thinking based on earth-developed life. We all seem to share common ancestors, either as mammals or birds even reptiles. We all have DNA and similar cellular structure. You can't assume the same for a metallic, Si-based, As-based or anything-I cannot-imagine-based life. Why even have cells or legs? Maybe even some type of fungus or a planet can develop consciousness of its own.

Bipedalism amongst intelligent species I also believe to be likely as the natural default at least in mammalian terms is to be quadrapedal but in order to advance beyond a certain level a great deal more dexterity is required than can be offered by just the use of a mouth and legs. (Try connecting a plug to a flex with your feet or your teeth.) This is overcome by becoming bipedal and freeing up the "front" limbs to be used for more cerebrally advanced tasks.

Are dolphins bipedals? Will a gas-giant life-form be and why? You are still thinking of mother Terras' creatures.

Peter

[edit on 30-7-2008 by ppolitop]

[edit on 30-7-2008 by ppolitop]

reply to post by ppolitop


I take your point but you are thinking an awfully long way outside the box. (certainly not a bad thing, particularly considering the subject matter.) However no reasonable assumption can be based on nothing at all and so in order to retain some degree of contact with reality we must lay the foundations of our musings upon the knowledge that we already have.

Here at ATS we ultimately strive to gain some recognition and acceptance for what are not considered to be mainstream ideas. If we answer the question "why?" too often with "why not?" then we risk losing what little credibility we have with the general populace.

On the whole I share your sentiments but science is not about reaching for the moon, it is about building a stairway there one step at a time.

As far as your other points regarding thumbs, flies and facial configurations are concerned, I feel that we are espousing the virtues of two sides of a single coin.

I also agree that dolphins are known and accepted to be intelligent creatures but in a very different way. They are still a long way from the space age and as such I am basing my assumptions on the one species that I can inarguably state has evolved in a way that has alowed it to utilise its intelligence to a point where the scientific achievements of one man are the foundations of those of another, often hundreds of years later. Perhaps they are more intelligent than we are, but until their evolution allows them to express that in a more concrete form then we are merely speculating.

I apologise now if this post is incomprehensible, I have just got home from the pub!

:-)

I mentioned Arsenic and Pyritium (Is that a word? I mean element Si) because it has already been proven that they can sustain large organic-like molecules under the right circumstances!

I see your points that maybe I am going top far but isn't any assumption of alien life by its-self doing so anyway?

Meh, you are probably right! I need to go to work, talk to you guys soon!

Peter

reply to post by ppolitop



I think we are both 'right'. (And we both deserve those inverted commas!) I see no reason why any complex system could not at some point become self aware. Perhaps we are so vastly insignificant that regardless of where we look and what we may find there our discoveries (positive or negative) will be largely, if not entirely irrelavent on a grander scale. Pehaps the universe is self aware. Perhaps it is not. Perhaps it is a part of some other self aware system on a scale beyond our comprehension. Perhaps it is not.

I think that science is heading in the right direction with the experiments being carried out by the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) at Cern. In looking for and hopefully finding the smallest particles we may finally have a full understanding of Quantum Theory, electromagnetism and most importantly gravity (which is still not fully understood). This will provide us with a strong and unshakable foundation on which to base all further research.

One thought that does strike me however is that on the scale of the universe we seem to be much closer to the bottom end of the scale than the top. In fact we have no inkling where the top of the scale is or if it is even finite. This is a difficult thing to imagine at the moment whatever proves to be the case.

Perhaps we are actually somewhere near the middle. Can there be a 'middle if the scale of creation is infinite? Can infinity have a beginning if it has no end? Are the beginning and the end of the universe to be found in the same place, i.e. the elusive higgs bosun particle? Is the universe that we know contained inside the smallest possible particle in another universe? Would this mean that in discovering the smallest possible particle we will in fact be discovering 'God', although not necessarily our own?

This has really got me thinking now. What does everybody else think?

I agree with the Op. Life can probably spawn in conditions we cannot even fathom yet.

Given some parts of the Universe are more developed (or 'older') than others, one can assume the periodic table differs slightly from galaxy to galaxy depending on how many cycles of super novas to nebulas to solar systems have occurred. Our knowledge is limited in this way. Therefore I believe anything is possible.

NASA must think there's some probability of ET viruses. The Apollo Astronauts were all quarantined upon arrival back on Earth... and they made sure those moon rocks were sealed good and tight too... and not just to avert the risk of us cross contaminating the samples!

In early times, it was also believed that the arrival of Haleys Comet coincided with viral outbreaks suck as influenza and plague etc. Though this may just be a blend of speculation, hysteria and superstition.

However, having said all that - if scientists didn't believe that it was possible for micro organisms to survive the harsh conditions of space, they wouldn't have invented terms such as Panspermia or Exogenesis!

Makes ya think huh!

IRM

Very interesing points there. Why shouldn't life spread around the universe by itself? One characteristic of all terrestrial lifeforms is tha they will endeavour to spread as fas as evolution or environment (sort of the same factor in this case) will allow them. It makes sense that if life can traverse the boundaries imposed by space then it will. As you say, many already believe that microbial life can travel on comets or aseroids and humankind, now capable of manipulating our own environment have taken the first steps towards crossing the void. I is as if from the tiniest microbe to the most complex creature, on some level we are all programmed to behave the same.

One more thing, if you are talking about straight proximetry to a star then Earth could be an exception to the rule. I think there are a lot of binary star systems and thus a planet could be much farther from either star, but receieve enough radiation due to their being ]two bodies vs one.

Another very interesting factor to take into account. This is all fascinating conjecture. Perhaps some of our scientists should take notice of threads like this and adjust their thinking. They might have more luck. Perhaps they already have judging by what a lot of people have been saying in the news recently.

The trouble is there is too much utter nonsense on ATS to trawl through before you find any realistic debates which dents our credibility a little.

It amuses me that so many people are happy to insist upon more and more concrete evidence and increasingly credible witnesses and sources on threads that stand side by side with what I find to be incredibly weird analyses of grainy home video claiming to show reptilian metamorphoses.

Still, I suppose thats just the nature of our beast!

[edit on 1-8-2008 by digdeep]