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.

 

What's the probability of extraterrestrial life?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Again, earth like planets doesn't mean these planets have to be exactly like earth to harbor life.

We know from extremophiles that life finds a way in extreme conditions.


Since planets orbiting Gliese 581 are too far away to be seen directly, Mayor and colleagues originally spotted Gliese 581d by searching for tiny wobbles in the host star's motion using the European Southern Observatory (ESO) telescope at La Silla in Chile.

Weighing in at around seven Earth masses, Gliese 581d is unlikely to be made of rocks alone, the team believes.

"We can only speculate at this stage, but it may have a rocky core, encased in an icy layer, with a liquid ocean at the surface and an atmosphere," Mayor said.

Meanwhile, the much smaller and lighter Gliese 581e "probably doesn't look too different to Earth, except that it will be very hot, because it is so close to its host star," said Andrew Norton, an astronomer also at the Open University.

Norton's colleague Haswell added: "It is very exciting that such a promising candidate for an Earthlike planet has been found so close to us. It means there are likely to be many more when we search further."

And the more Earthlike planets there are, the greater the chance of discovering one that harbors life.

"I think it is only a matter of time," Norton said. "If life really does exist elsewhere in the universe, then within the next 10 to 15 years I expect we may see the first signs of life, via spectroscopic signals from exoplanets."


news.nationalgeographic.com...

Again, we know life finds a way because of extremophiles that can survive without carbon, oxygen or sunlight.

We also have evidence of liquid water on Mars and the moon as well as signs of microbial life.

So these exoplanets are very important in are search for life outside of earth. This is because we know that life finds a way.




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


it might harbour life then again we dont know. Also they dont say what albedo they used to calculate the surface temp. Astronomy needs to jazz things up for public consumption so they come up with phrases like "ocean" to make it sound more interesting.

The reality is at 8 earth mass this planet will be more like neptune than earth. Its also too massive for us to visit or colonize becuase of the increased gravity.

The best weve done in terms of size is corot exo 7b. 2 earth radius but its in the wrong place too close to the star.

Kepler will tell us how common terestrial planets are in the HZ of G type stars like the sun. Extremophiles are one thing. Plants & animals and as such intelligent life need a narrower range of conditions to survive.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Post my quotes where I said Drake's equation was a law. Of course your debating a point that was never made. This is what pseudoskeptics do.


I never said you said it was law. I said you were treating it as if it were, and misappropriating it from his original intention. Please post where I said you said it was the law. You are debating a point that was never made. This is what pseudoskeptics do. Therefore, you must be a pseudoskeptic.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is why I asked other people who can weigh the probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe to share their conclusions in the original post.

You were the only one that couldn't understand this.


I do understand what you asked, but I just did not agree we could come up with any reasonable conclusions, yet.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
People have reached the conclusion that they can based on the available evidence. Most people with half a brain can weigh the probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe based on the available evidence.


And most people can acknowledge our knowledge base is not expansive enough yet to form any solid conclusion.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
We weigh the available evidence in all walks of life as to what's most likely and what's less likely.


And in all walks of life we also acknowledge when we cannot draw a conclusion because of insufficient evidence.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is why people responded with the conclusions they reached. Again, you said you can't weigh the probabilities. It makes no sense, but it's your opinion. This is not a debate about you.


Why does it make no sense? Why does it make no sense to acknowledge the short-coming in what we know?

If it is not about me, then why do you keep making it about me with ad hominems?

For instance...


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Most people with half a brain can weigh the probability of...



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Again, anyone with half a brain can weigh the probability...



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Anyone with half a brain knows the debate was about...



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You look silly when you make these statements.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You will just make yourself look silly like you do in other threads.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I tried to hold back and steer the debate back to the original point but pseudoskeptics like yourself always wants to make the debate about them.


I did not make this debate about me, Matrix Rising. You did by attacking me as a pseudoskeptic and a liar for no other reason than disagreeing with the premise. You are the one who keeps leveling personal attacks. You have repeatedly questioned my intelligence, called me silly, referred to me as a liar. If you didn't want this to be about me, you could debate my conclusion and my argument for it without the ad hominems. You are the one wanting to make this about me.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
So let's make it about you and that illogical statement that you can't weigh the probabilities.


Why is it illogical to say that we do not yet have enough information?


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Anyone can weigh the probabilities based on the available evidence and only a blind pseudoskeptic will say you can't weigh the probability.


How does it make one a pseudoskeptic to say there is not enough evidence available? Or that the evidence we have is insufficient?

We weigh the available evidence in all walks of life as to what's most likely and what's less likely.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
It was looking at the available evidence and posting your conclusions. The only one that couldn't understand this is you.


I do understand this but I disagreed with the premise. I have looked at the evidence and believe it to be insufficient. That is my conclusion.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Like I said, most people understood the topic of the thread and they posted why they reached their conclusions.


As have I. I posted my conclusion (that it is impossible to know quite yet) and my reasons behind it. You however, attacked me for it.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Here's a ton of articles debating the probability of extraterrestrial life.


Yes, and they have a fundamental flaw in that there are many variables we do not know yet. Too many. We are blind men groping.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I tried to avoid this and keep the thread civil but pseudoskeptics make the silliest statements


You never tried to avoid it. Your very first post to me was full of ad hominems. And again, how is it silly to acknowledge we do not have enough information?

Of course you can weigh the probability based on the available evidence. We do this in all walks of life.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You just want to turn the thread into a silly debate about can we weigh the probability.


Why is that silly?


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
If you look at the post on this thread, people debated the issue. When it came to you, you wanted to let your pseudoskepticism shine and debate something else.


First, it was on topic. The topic being the probability, my premise was a bit different but it was still on topic. And I was willing to debate that issue. You are the one who decided to take it elsewhere. Second, could you please explain how offering a different premise, acknowledging our information is limited and may be insufficient, is pseudoskepticism?

And you really need to invest in a thesaurus.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
We know from extremophiles that life finds a way in extreme conditions.


We find ourselves in a chicken-or-egg situation. Did conditions have to be hospitable for "normal" (for lack of a better term) life and then extremophiles evolved to fill a niche or can life arise anywhere?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
Extremophiles are one thing. Plants & animals and as such intelligent life need a narrower range of conditions to survive.


We don't know that. We know it is true for the current form of life on Earth but it may not hold true on other worlds.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


i forgot to add complex life as we know it



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


This is my point.


If you didn't want this to be about me, you could debate my conclusion and my argument for it without the ad hominems. You are the one wanting to make this about me.


Why should I debate your conclusion when it has nothing to do with the thread?

When you say it's impossible to know the probability that makes no sense.

We debate the probability of these things all the time and in all walks of life. Most people debated the issue.

You wanted to turn the thread into a debate about your conclusion.

The thread is not titled can we weigh the probabilities.

Of course we can and people do it all the time and they have did it throughout this thread.

Just look at the responses on the thread. Most people debated and weighed the available evidence and they shared their conclusions. It's not rocket science. It's also not about debating your conclusion about wether we can or can't weigh the probabilities of these things.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
About 95% on basic lifeforms such as bacteria existing outside of the Planet Earth, and 80% on sentient intelligent lifeforms.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Please remember to discuss the topic, not each other.

The topic, if anyone forgot it, it's "What's the probability of extraterrestrial life?"



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Here's more from NASA about the probability of microbial life on Mars.


ALIEN bugs are responsible for strong plumes of methane gas detected on Mars, it was claimed tonight.

Nasa scientists say the gas emissions could have either a geological or biological source - as The Sun exclusively revealed today.
Life is responsible for more than 90 per cent of the Earth's atmospheric methane.

Experts believe there is a good chance that organisms produced the gas emissions - as large as some of those seen on Earth - on Mars too.

Scientist Michael Mumma of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center said: "This raises the probability substantially that life was there or still survives at the present.

"We think the probability is much higher now based on this evidence."

The bugs that made it may have vanished millions of years ago, leaving the methane frozen under the planet's surface.

But another possibility is that some hardy organisms still survive on the Red Planet, living underground without sunlight and using hydrogen from water for energy. Similar microbes exist on Earth.


www.thesun.co.uk...


First Signs of Life Possibly Discovered on Mars Meteorite

A few years ago, a large controversy was set in motion in the international scientific community about the possible existence of fossilized life forms in a Martian meteorite that crash-landed in Antarctica. The piece of rock, known as ALH 84001, was then believed by some to contain certain proof that life existed on the Red Planet sometime in the past. Skeptics were naturally less than willing to accept that, and proposed that cross-contamination may have been responsible for the discovery. Just recently, results of a new set of analysis have demonstrated that a non-biological explanation for how the structures formed is unfeasible and impossible.

This of course means that only a biological explanation for the formation of the worm-like structures can be possible. The meteorite arrived on our planet more than 13,000 years ago, after floating through space for more than 16 million years. When it was originally studied, in 1996, the meteorite hinted that it may contain biological samples, but critics dismissed this claim, saying that a non-biological explanation could be found to explain them. In the recent investigation, a team of experts at the NASA Johnson Space Center, led by Chief Scientist for Astrobiology David S. McKay, looked at the rock again, using technology that was not available to science 13 years ago, Times Online reports.

Nakhla and Yamato 593 are two other Martian rocks, which are also under investigation by the Johnson team. The complete analysis results will be published shortly, but the team says that these rocks contain signs of microbial life too, which must have come from the Red Planet. If the find is confirmed, then we may be at the dawn of a new age. In 1997, when the original work was published, even then-President Bill Clinton made a public announcement.

The find “speaks of the possibility of life. If this discovery is confirmed, it will surely be one of the most stunning insights into our Universe that science has ever uncovered. Its implications are as far-reaching and awe-inspiring as can be imagined,” he said at the time.


news.softpedia.com...

If microbial life is confirmed on Mars then that's the ballgame.

Liquid water tooks us much closer because as NASA scientist said before the discovery, where there's water there's life.

This would mean that life can form under conditions outside of earth.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
It doesn't make much sense to try and assign probabilities to other life. A probability of 1% or 99% is meaningless, as it will not change the fact that their is or isn't ET life.

Either ET life exists, or it doesn't. It's not a repeatable experiment. The only precedent that we have is that life exists on Earth.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Yes it does. We do it all the time in all walks of life.

Here's a NASA scientistist weighing the probability of extraterrestrial life based on the evidence.


Scientist Michael Mumma of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center said: "This raises the probability substantially that life was there or still survives at the present.

"We think the probability is much higher now based on this evidence."


We do it all the time in all walks of life.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
i forgot to add complex life as we know it


There we go. I have a feeling though, considering the apparent abundance of the building blocks for life-as-we-know it in the galaxy, life-as-we-know it may be the rule rather than the exception.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

It shows how some NASA scientists don't understand probability.

ET life either exists, or it doesn't.

No matter what discoveries are made, they will not change the fact that ET life either exists or doesn't exist.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


The probability of ET life is 100%.

I'm not sure whether there are any aliens visiting us here on Earth today but I pretty much guarantee there are civilizations with the technology to get here. Whether or not they want to come here is real question.

I think most UFOs are explainable but there are those that could indeed be visitors from the stars. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why scientists don't like believing aliens could be visiting us. Have these people seen the Hubble Deep Field? There are billions and billions and billions of galaxies, it'd be absurd to think someone out there doesn't have the ability to travel the vast distances involved. Have these scientists watched Science Fiction, the first thing any self-respecting civilization does once they've perfected faster than light travel is explore the cosmos looking for other intelligent life.

They're out there somewhere and quite possibly they're visiting Earth.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Here's a NASA scientistist weighing the probability of extraterrestrial life based on the evidence...


Within a very closed system. Considering if there is life on Mars is one thing, considering the question in regards to the galaxy outside of this solar-system or intelligent life is another.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Yes it does. We do it all the time in all walks of life.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
We do it all the time in all walks of life.


The Thesaurus. Make it your friend.



[edit on 29-11-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Within a very closed system. Considering if there is life on Mars is one thing, considering the question in regards to the galaxy outside of this solar-system or intelligent life is another.

No it's not.

What do you think that ET means, if it does not mean extraterrestrial?

Any life found on Mars would be ET life.

Downplay it if you will, but it exposes your illogical reasoning for what ET life is or isn't.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
What do you think that ET means, if it does not mean extraterrestrial?

Any life found on Mars would be ET life.

Downplay it if you will, but it exposes your illogical reasoning for what ET life is or isn't.


I'm not saying it wouldn't be. What I am saying is even if we did find life on Mars, we would still be left with the question of whether there is intelligent life or if life is something unique to our solar system (doubt it, but there is that possibility). Though it would be a sign for hope.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
What I am saying is even if we did find life on Mars, we would still be left with the question of whether there is intelligent life

Moving goal posts.


Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
or if life is something unique to our solar system

Moving goal posts.

Indigenous life discovered on Mars would prove that ET life exists.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Here's a NASA scientistist weighing the probability of extraterrestrial life based on the evidence...


Within a very closed system. Considering if there is life on Mars is one thing, considering the question in regards to the galaxy outside of this solar-system or intelligent life is another.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Yes it does. We do it all the time in all walks of life.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
We do it all the time in all walks of life.


The Thesaurus. Make it your friend.



[edit on 29-11-2009 by DoomsdayRex]


What???

Nobody is talking about within a closed system. This is why we have things like the Kepler mission.

If we find microbial life on Mars then it's a high probability that microbial life exists throughout the galaxy.

This is just basic common sense.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join