Why do astronomers use earth climate metrics for debating the existence of life elsewhere?

I have a hunch that life exists within the bodies of stars. It is made of sentient plasma.

Why not?

Open your mind.

Right now, there is a debate raging within populations of these beings whether or not life can exist anyplace other than a star of their temperature. Other stars are too hot, other stars are too cold.

And!!! ... they think that life existing on planets is simply impossible. There's no plasma there, which, of course, is the building block of sentient life forms.



[edit on 9-6-2010 by 30_seconds]

reply to post by 30_seconds


That's kind of the point I was trying to make. With my supporting evidence being the range of life found in extremely inhospitable places for homo sapiens.

Also, if anyone would like to comment on or add to my short ramblings on the previous page, please do so.

Originally posted by drwolf
reply to post by Schmidt1989

 

Has any one ever sent a spectrometer to the otherside of the universe, I don't think so.

Obviously not. But have our telescopes peered past thousands of stars and read every chemical makeup of them? Yeah, pretty much. The odds of a naturally occuring element that hasnt been found yet is very, very low.

The fact that NASA scientists are openly speculating about the possibilities of life on frigidly cold Titan (moon of Saturn) shows that -- counter to what the OP says -- astrobiologists DO IN FACT consider life is possible in climates other than Earth's.

[edit on 6/9/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


You're right, that makes sense.

I don't mean to take any sort of harsh tone with my OP, other than merely to instill a bit of criticism in attitudes I've seen towards this topic from differing scientists.

I absolutely agree and understand what you're saying, but you know as well as I how many times the phrase "Venus can't contain life because it is too hot," or any such derivative pertaining to X planet, moon, or what have you has been uttered.

I do concede my OP may have been somewhat of a contradiction in that regard, but I digress that most scientists still seem to view life from solely an earthlike perspective. I guess, as mentioned, that's because it's the only perspective we have.

Regardless, I only made this topic for speculation and debate. And as always, thanks for any and all comments. This is a topic I spend lots of time thinking about.

They do this because they are incapable of thinking outside the box.

Those who do think outside the box are regarded as "crackpots" and their ideas of never given consideration.

reply to post by SaosinEngaged


It's true that there are certainly many people (and even some scientists) who still think that "Earth-like" conditions -- temperate climate and plentiful water -- are required for life to exist. Although, that thinking has changed quite a bit in the past decade or so.

However, the fact remains that it may be easier for us to recognize that sort of life, so it follows that would be the first kind of life we would look for. Having said that, I think that as our technological ability to detect biological processes becomes more sophisticated, we should also look in non Earth-like places.

Now that we know about extreme forms of life here on Earth (Earth life that we didn't know existed a few short decades ago) we can apply that knowledge to the search for ET life -- plus new theoretical knowledge of even more extreme forms of life -- such as life that NASA hypothesizes could thrive on Titan.

I think the argument made in the OP was true just a few years ago, but science has come around lately to consider the possibility of life in non-Earth-like environments.
HOWEVER, if we are actively looking for signs of life (such as with the case of Mars) it is still MUCH easier to detect life if we are looking for life "as we know it". It is much more difficult to recognize biological processes that are totally foreign to us.



[edit on 6/11/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

There are some really good posts in this thread that send the mind spinning. Lots of this stuff I always think of, but dont really say out loud because people might think I'm crazy lol.

But yah, why can't a certain 'lifeform' breathe some other known substance? Fish breathe water (well...oxygen I guess, via water) and we breathe air to get our oxygen. Maybe there are otherworldly creatures that eat rocks for a certain element they need to survive. Who knows?

Personally I love imagining 300 foot tall animals with six legs and skinny bodies... Really sends the imagination on a vacation



And think of it this way; we only know about the living and the nonliving (inanimate). What if there are whole other levels or states? I know it's a long stretch, but like someone said, we don't know everything.



Which brings me to another point...



Imagine hundreds of years ago. The days of knights and castles and poop dropping from 3rd story windows. The peak of their imagination was dragons and gods. Do you think they imagined what we do? I don't think they would have even known HOW to imagine robots or computers. You cant exactly just 'think up' an iPhone.

Do you think we have reached the peak of our imagination? I mean, what is there left to imagine? Think of a robot...mix with an alien....cyborg. Time travel, space travel, ghosts, cryptids, interdimensional beings. I honestly cant imagine scientists discovering something and me being amazed.

Scientists discover time travel. It would be cool, but it's not new to me.

What do you think? End of imagination?