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.

 

New theory suggests that we may not be alone after all

page: 2
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by skeetontheconspiracy
 

E-*sniping*-zactly! Why does all life have to be carbon? Lets as NASA and any scientist.

reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss
I honestly thinking they are wating for us to change our ways.




posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Ancient Shade, your need a re-prioritizing vacation on a remote island in the Bahammas or the Carribbean for a year. You take for granted all that is around you and in your special life. Shame on you! God is probably bothered too. Your attitude smacks of depression. Start walking 4 miles
everyother day or running. Sit in a flower garden and marvel at all the miracles around you. Wake up and take a look!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grey Magic
I think people who deny the existence of extraterrestrial life are stupid or brainwashed.


I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. But who is the stupidest? Those who accept something as true without any proof, or those who don't?

If you know something the greatest living minds on the planet don't know, let's hear it. Otherwise, what we have now is exactly zero proof of ET life in any form. Not that there couldn't be life. Maybe there is. But maybe is a long way from definitely is.

And you can go on all day about probabilities and the number of stars and planets similar to our sun. But unless you know exactly how life came to be on Earth (and nobody knows that, either), then there's no way to accurately calculate the odds of it happening anywhere else.

In all the planets of all the galaxies in the entire universe, the thing that allowed a bunch of random chemicals to form into incredibly complex living, evolving creatures with a point of view might only have happened once. We might be the only game in town. Which is either "arrogant" or "sad," depending on your own personal view of humanity.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 



and the knowledge that we've attained might never been known outside our own little planet



I guess that is irrelevant either way then. If there is intelligent life then it likely is much more advanced than us so our knowledge we have learned won't matter anyways, as a quarter of it is constantly changing and the rest would already be known to other species. Of course are own personal history would be lost to all forever if we are it. I guess either way we need to step up to the plate, either as a member of a universal community or as the only leader and occupant of the Universe.

[edit on 7/16/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Fair point except ...

Let's, for the sake of argument, take the total sum of all available knowledge in this universe, call it finite, and name it x.

It is my opinion that the total sum of human intellectual knowledge to date would amount to .0000000000000001% of x. (not being scientific with them zeros, just making a point) And a fruit fly has let's say 0 such intellectual knowledge.

You see where I'm going with this ...

That is not to say that the scientific process should be discarded, on the contrary. With each additional element of knowledge all horizons expand. To discard probabilistic hypothesis on the fact that they have not been observed is a bit of false logic straw alien thinking to meez.


[edit on 15 Jul 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I think at this point it could be just as probable to say that life just arose with what it had to work with here on Earth rather than to say life NEEDED what it had to work with on Earth.

Life might do just as well at arising with an even smaller amount of chemicals on hand.

Life might do even better if it had MORE chemicals than what were present on Earth at the start of life.

These are things that we just do not know.

It is like trying to understand the fossil record with just one fossil.

We KNOW there are other animals around us but was there more than one animal in the past since we have only found one fossil?

Well it would seem so since we are surrounded by animals so we should base our hypothesis on that.








[edit on 15-7-2009 by TurkeyBurgers]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Aliens exist. They existed before we existed. They co-exist with us right now. Aliens have bred with humans for a while now, so yes we have hybrids as well.

What "scientists" need to do is STOP wasting time looking at other stars and planets. You don't need to go far to find the truth.

This is what they need to do:

Take the government to court and demand release of documents from its "Secret" sectors and branches where public access is denied. Once that door opens, we will all live in a new world and with a new mentality.

I hate to see "scientists" waste everyone else's time when the truth is in plain view.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bobbylove321
 





Take the government to court and demand release of documents from its "Secret" sectors and branches where public access is denied. Once that door opens, we will all live in a new world and with a new mentality.


Can't you open one of your portals to access al that? why take them to court...or is that what you mean by opening doors?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


BRAVO! As always well researched and well thought concluding to a thread with an interesting statement that has some basis on science without the unnecessary frills!

You have my S&F MY Applause and my Greetings!



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
As i understand it carbon is one of the most versatile elements thats why researchers have such thing for it.

Im am currently finishing up Michio Kaku's "Physics of the Impossible" the title is really misleading but he deals with impossible technology and our current knowledge and goes on to explain that most of the far out subject matter ie wormholes, teleportation, force fields and so on would dbe easily attainable if we were able to able to generate the huge amounts of energy required to achieve these impossibilities. I recommend this book to anyone

He says on the subject of E.T's " we know that carbon is likely a component to creating life because it has four bonds and hence the ability to bind four other atoms and create molecules of incredible complexity. I(n particular, it is easy to form long carbon chains, which become the basis for hydrocarbon and organic chemistry. Other elements with four bonds do not have such a rich chemistry"

Though i will add that i also believe that carbon isn't nesscessarily the sole requirement for life on other planets. Also just the unimaginable vastness of the universe itself is enough for me to believe that there is intelligent life out there waiting for us to stop being barbarians



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
We still have no idea of how life got started on this planet, and to what extent the current model of evolution applies. Other areas of research are making findings that could possibly show, other processes play a far more important role in the development of life.

How can we discuss the probability, of something we do not understand, taking place in other areas of the universe.?

I do not see it as `arrogant` to believe that our planet is the only one with life, is it not more arrogant to believe that our science can discuss such matters.?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


I do think its very naive to to say that because we have no actual proof of ET life, either intelligent or not, means that there is no life. As the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Scientist are searching the most remote and inhospitable places on the planet and rarely do they NOT find any microbial life.
"Miracle" microbes thrive at earths extremes

Based on this, I believe there is a very high chance there is life not only on other planets in the galaxy, but even in our own solar system. Who's to say that life can't exit on the moons of Jupiter or Saturn, or even in the clouds of the gas giants themselves. Rainmaking Bacteria

In my opinion, there are only two possibilities for the emergence of life on earth.

1. Life spawned from the mixing of chemicals in the primordial ooze and evolved into what it is now.
2. The seeds of life were planted here by either an intelligent race, or by space junk. Did comets make life on earth?

In either case, there has to be life elsewhere. Even if the chance of the first possibility is a trillion to one, that still leaves two other potential life bearing planets just in our own galaxy, let alone the rest of the universe.

Now the chance of intelligent life maybe very rare. The fossil record and the ice core samples tell us that there is a direct correlation with the amount of oxygen present in the atmosphere and the average size of a species brain. So for there to be intelligent life there would need to be high levels of oxygen present.

However, as a previous poster mentioned, there is a possibility that life doesn't have to be carbon based. It may just have to be carbon based to survive in our environment. A sulfur rich atmosphere might be more suited to silicon based life .ie Venus (just a theory, based on the relationship between oxygen and carbon on the periodic table).

Also, when it comes to evolution, I find a definite lack of out-of-the-box thinking. Evolutionary Leaps

These scientists say that there are 'leaps' in evolution because we haven't found the fossils of the steps in between. I think that scientists seem to overlook the fact that our solar system is moving through the galaxy and our galaxy is moving through the universe.

We know that radiation can mutate the cells in our body. Just ask anyone from Chernobyl. So what if the Earth passed through an area of space where a star went super nova? Wouldn't there be massive amounts of radiation left from the explosion. What about solar flares? There have been recorded incidents of powerful solar storms in human history, so what would these storms been like when our sun was young?

As I said, these are all factors that seem to be overlooked, and I think they provide a very plausible explanation for the 'leaps' we see in the fossil record.

All this evidence seems to point to the fact that it is highly unlikely for there NOT to be ET life in the universe.

NoHup, I can see from your sig and your posts that you are a skeptic, and I do applaud your desire for proof that life exists else where. Its nice to see someone who won't believe something just because someone else says it is so.

My only problem is that the skeptics are rarely the ones searching for the proof. The skeptics are the ones who wait for it to be handed to them on a silver platter, while the 'suckers' are the ones who are experimenting with new ideas.

And so I sign off with this, "The suckers who are stupid enough to think they can change the world, are usual the ones who do."



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I already believe theres life out there, anybody who believes in god or intelligent design should realize that why did the creator only create us, NO! There is more life then we know ever existed, we only are a very very small fraction of all the life out there. Thats my opinion



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 

Mod note: Personal commentary is never on topic. Please stay on topic. -- Majic



[edit on 7/15/2009 by Majic]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 



I doubt that were going to find more interesting stuff on Europa unless permission is granted from them.


[edit on 15-7-2009 by WolfElyts]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Getting back on topic ...

A very interesting paper referenced in the OP paper which addresses some of the raised arguments:



On the Non-observability of Recent Biogenesis



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by Grey Magic
I think people who deny the existence of extraterrestrial life are stupid or brainwashed.


I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. But who is the stupidest? Those who accept something as true without any proof, or those who don't?

If you know something the greatest living minds on the planet don't know, let's hear it. Otherwise, what we have now is exactly zero proof of ET life in any form. Not that there couldn't be life. Maybe there is. But maybe is a long way from definitely is.

And you can go on all day about probabilities and the number of stars and planets similar to our sun. But unless you know exactly how life came to be on Earth (and nobody knows that, either), then there's no way to accurately calculate the odds of it happening anywhere else.

In all the planets of all the galaxies in the entire universe, the thing that allowed a bunch of random chemicals to form into incredibly complex living, evolving creatures with a point of view might only have happened once. We might be the only game in town. Which is either "arrogant" or "sad," depending on your own personal view of humanity.


He may very well know something all the "great minds" don't. If he's seen something extraterrestrial or even a EBE, than that's a fact to him. Just because you haven't seen anything, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and I can tell you for a FACT, I HAVE SEEN UFO's and by that, I mean discs, not some government craft. I have many friends and family members who have first hand experience as well, so to me, it's a fact.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Thanks for posting this OP, it looks like an interesting read.

But every time I see a thread like this I cringe at the thought of how many people are going to jump all over it with the whole "it's very arrogant to assume we are alone" comments.

I already see a few of these comments and I have to say first off it's very arrogant to assume ANYTHING. There is nothing scientific about stating something one way just because it's arrogant to go the other way. The least arrogant answer you can give is "I don't know".

But more importantly to those people reciting the same old claims about there being "nothing special" about us - I think you are actually missing the entire point of the OP's article and really need to consider two things:

1. The difference between life and intelligent life - i.e. the kind that can build a radio telescope.

&

2. The difference between the Earth being rare in space and it being rare in time.


Yes, there are a lot of stars out there.
Yes, everyday we're finding more and more planets around them.
Some are even showing up in "hospitable zones" and yes - we do have a few scientific experiments that SUGGEST (not PROVE) that abiogenesis is a natural process under the right conditions.

So yeah - it is arguably probable that life is not rare in space.




Intelligent life in time is a completely different matter however.

The only test case we have is Earth and here it took 4.5 Billion years for someone to invent the space shuttle or send a wireless text message to someone else.

4.5 Billion compared to the age of the universe (~14 Billion) is no longer an insignificant ratio the way our planet being one among zillions (or whatever) is in space.

And we don't know enough about evolution to say that super-intelligence is some inevitable outcome in the survival of the fittest. All we know is that for 4 billion years other life survived and even thrived without it. Furthermore now that we hit the jackpot, we've become so spoiled and reckless with our winnings that it seems we're hell-bent on sending the whole process back to zero in an eyeblink compared to those other timescales.

So what the OP's article is saying is that this is not a proper assessment because due to "universal factors", the clock has only recently started running on the possibility of intelligent life.

But more importantly - I think what a lot of people need to take from this article is that the intelligent life debate is a lot more complicated than just "it's very arrogant to assume blah blah blah"



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 

A perfect opportunity to cite one of my all time favorites -


Fermi paradox

... is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.

The extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common. In an informal discussion in 1950, the physicist Enrico Fermi questioned why, if a multitude of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist in the Milky Way galaxy, evidence such as spacecraft or probes are not seen. A more detailed examination of the implications of the topic began with a paper by Michael H. Hart in 1975, and it is sometimes referred to as the Fermi-Hart paradox. Another closely related question is the Great Silence — even if travel is hard, if life is common, why don't we detect their radio transmissions?

There have been attempts to resolve the Fermi Paradox by locating evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations, along with proposals that such life could exist without human knowledge. Counterarguments suggest that intelligent extraterrestrial life does not exist or occurs so rarely that humans will never make contact with it.

Source : Wikipedia



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
It is impossible to determine how life would develop / evolve elsewhere without any test cases (aka other inhabited worlds). The only information we have available is Earth. By the looks of things around here, life did a pretty good job evolving. However a simple microbe would do. Personally I hope we find more than that on Europa.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by DaMod]


I couldn't agree more with you, until we study even ONE other planet's civilization, it's damn hard to decide what goes on throughout the entire history and time of the universe in regards to all forms of life.

It's, what;s the word... preposterous. It's.... fraudulent. It's..... bad science.

And we will find more on Europa I think, the only thing that makes me think maybe we won't is it's sheer distance from the sun and light.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join