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.

 

Is Alpha Centauri inhabited?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie


Ummm...

but again, you are generalizing everything to be 'human-like'...

the reason that we would vaporize is because we are carbon and water based....everything in the universe does not have to be.

And if was a gaseous species, does that make it not legit?

You also stated that it would be unidentifiable or unrecognizable (to whom, US?) and WE humans determine what is life in the universe?? We barley can leave Earth pretty good and will be near death by the time we leave our own solar system. yet we determine what counts and what doesn't?


Once again, the whole human aspect is pretty important to human knowledge. Of course we can't know everything so we determine what is and what isn't from our perspective.

It's not just carbon and water based; the lighter elements, the ones that would be necessary to create life, would be fusing together to create heavier elements inside of a star and the temperature/pressure alone would be enough to sterilize any chance of life. So naturally occurring life in a star? Yeah, no.




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Well, here's a thought... build a Heim hyperspace ship, and go find out what is in the Alpha Centauri star system. The trip would only take a few days, based on what I've read. But, it might taks 5 to 10 years to build the ship first.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
From the reserching I have done, i believe its the "Nordics" that are from this binary star system



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fuzz420
From the reserching I have done, i believe its the "Nordics" that are from this binary star system


Fascinating! Tell me how you came to that conclusion.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by vexati0n


Ummm...

but again, you are generalizing everything to be 'human-like'...

the reason that we would vaporize is because we are carbon and water based....everything in the universe does not have to be.

And if was a gaseous species, does that make it not legit?

You also stated that it would be unidentifiable or unrecognizable (to whom, US?) and WE humans determine what is life in the universe?? We barley can leave Earth pretty good and will be near death by the time we leave our own solar system. yet we determine what counts and what doesn't?


Actually even a diamond would vaporize before it got close enough to the Sun to touch it. But more to the point, what you propose is to broaden the definition of "Life" so far that it becomes essentially meaningless. In many ways, fire exhibits the characteristics of life: it grows, it reproduces, it consumes, it dies, etc. It is obviously not life, though. In order for life to be meaningful and recognizable to us, it will necessarily need to conform to certain standards: it must be able to communicate, it must be able to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next, it must be able to remember, and it must be able to do all of these things in ways which we can comprehend: otherwise, it might as well not be life at all.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by vexati0n

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by vexati0n


Ummm...

but again, you are generalizing everything to be 'human-like'...

the reason that we would vaporize is because we are carbon and water based....everything in the universe does not have to be.

And if was a gaseous species, does that make it not legit?

You also stated that it would be unidentifiable or unrecognizable (to whom, US?) and WE humans determine what is life in the universe?? We barley can leave Earth pretty good and will be near death by the time we leave our own solar system. yet we determine what counts and what doesn't?


Actually even a diamond would vaporize before it got close enough to the Sun to touch it. But more to the point, what you propose is to broaden the definition of "Life" so far that it becomes essentially meaningless. In many ways, fire exhibits the characteristics of life: it grows, it reproduces, it consumes, it dies, etc. It is obviously not life, though. In order for life to be meaningful and recognizable to us, it will necessarily need to conform to certain standards: it must be able to communicate, it must be able to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next, it must be able to remember, and it must be able to do all of these things in ways which we can comprehend: otherwise, it might as well not be life at all.


Ahh, so life can only be the way as humans experiece??

If its not like us, its not intelligent
If it does not orbit around a star like ours and be the same distance as WE are from the star, then its not a habitable planet
If it is not carbon and water based, then it isn't life....

and most importantly:

If they don't visit Earth and PROVE themselves to us, then they don't exist.

* Humans can be really arrogant......



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


That isn't what I said, you seem to want to see an argument about a very small point when I am illustrating something much larger.

Life can be whatever/wherever it wants to. I'm just saying that for practical reasons, we shouldn't be expected to accept any definition of life that isn't within our comprehension. This isn't "arrogance," it's realism. If a life form cannot communicate or remember or do anything else that would identify it as a life form to me, then it is either not a life form, or not a life form I have any moral or other obligation to recognize.

Objective, higher truth can think what it wants - I'm not claiming to hold all the answers, but by the same token if I don't have all the answers, it's ridiculous to expect me to behave as if I do - and it's also ridiculous to assert things that would require an impossible level of understanding or to be familiar with imaginary frames of reference.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
We haven't even explored our own solar system enough to quantifiably rule out other intelligent lifeforms here...let alone another star.

For all we know, an intelligent, aquatic race may inhabit the oceans under the icy crust of Europa.... Unlikely, perhaps, but possible.

There have been quite a few alleged abductees claiming to be taken by those from Alpha Centauri...no real big names though, that I can think of. Some try to link the Hill Case to Alpha Centauri, but it doesn't fit the case evidence.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by zookey

I really doubt the "star" is inhabited, it would be too hot to live on the surface wouldnt it?




Yes the actual Stars would be too hot. I misread your post thinking you were talking about the hypothetical planets.

The Stars themselves have a unique orbit if I remember correctly. The hypothetical planets in the Alpha Centauri system might use both of the Suns for energy, or maybe all 3. I'm not really sure the possible locations, or orbits for the hypothetical planets. Maybe someone on here does.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by descartes90
 


alpha centuri is a star - so no , there is negligable chance it is inhabited

is alpha centruri orbited by an inhabitted planet ? - unknown - we have yet to even see evidence of planets - let alone life in that system


The theory of star formation suggests that all stars have a planetary system orbiting them. It would be irresponsible of science to suggest otherwise. Do they possess habitable planets? It's according to what you would call 'habitable'. The Earth in habitated by millions of species with one species standing out as the 'intelligent' one. There again, intelligence is only a matter of opinion considering that his one species is capable of destroying 'worlds' and one another.

Can a binary star-system possess planets? Of course. There's no reason why they shouldn't. If Jupiter had more mass than what it now has, it would ignite into a 'star'. Even if Jupiter was the same size as the Sun and it did ignite, it would be only 'one-quarter' the size of the Sun in the sky. Would life still be possible on Earth? I absolutely don't see why not.
edit on 18/5/11 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


Scientific theory certainly does not declare that all stars have planetary systems. They form in various ways. One of the most common is from clouds of dust and gas which may or may not coalesce into planets after a star's formation. But nowhere does it say all stars are orbited by planets.

If Jupiter was a star like the Sun, it may or may not have made life impossible on Earth. I doubt life is impossible in binary star systems just because there are 2 stars, it just depends on how they formed, when they formed, and what happened to the dust clouds around them as a result.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by descartes90
 


alpha centuri is a star - so no , there is negligable chance it is inhabited

is alpha centruri orbited by an inhabitted planet ? - unknown - we have yet to even see evidence of planets - let alone life in that system


Hi. I got some photos courtesy of Stellarium! Two, to show that it wiggles! There is a 'pause' button, these two photos are taken while it's in play. I'd like to zoom to any planets there.







posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by descartes90
 


alpha centuri is a star - so no , there is negligable chance it is inhabited

is alpha centruri orbited by an inhabitted planet ? - unknown - we have yet to even see evidence of planets - let alone life in that system


Our Sun is a star. It is inhabited (humans, monkeys, cats, dogs) by a planet called Earth. We have evidence that planets exists because we kind of live on one.

Alpha centuri is probobly not a star system that harbors life. But there is evidence that life may exist on other pieces of rock.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 5/18/2011 by Rev_Godslapper because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
I don't know why I feel compelled to respond to this post as in all honesty I have no real informative input to add to the topic. Reason being for posting is this, as a youngster I asked many questions to my father 'don't we all'.

At the time I was in my little brain trying to figure how men walked on the moon I was about 7 at the time. My father who despite being a total looser 'big drink problem' is a genius, and I mean absolute genius he can recite anything from the encyclopedia from memory amongst other things.

My father had a number of interesting fields of work and jobs MOD FCO BT Phillips.... He was able to answer all questions I pitched to him, as long as I remembered the answers lol. Lets take the speed of light as this is how it all started at a velocity of 186,000 he kept drumming into me it's not a 'speed' as in how fast you go but a ways by which to measure the vast distances in space.

So on this chilly summers evening while sat in a beer garden 'of course' the discussion from how you get men to the moon was covered digested and understood, the discussion regarding the speed of light and how light travels also covered. My last topic of debate for the evening being 'space men' as I used to call them, you know those people from/in space.

A most interesting thing happened my father told me this being 27 years ago. The space men or 'aliens' the nearest being 'in' he did not say at or on but 'in' Alpha Centauri don't come here much as it is so far away?

Just to add this was not drink talking but somebody who knew a bit about a lot, he admitted UFO having been in the 'bunker' and witnessed just how at the time they used to mess up the radar screen big time changing size shape direction speed and heading or simply twinkling on and off.

I know we all have had those chats with our fathers it's just this one was odd to say the least and I have always been interested in Alpha Centauri ever since. I cant see Alpha Centauri is the only planet to harbor life but could it be the closest to Earth?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
The Alpha Centauri triple star system comprise of the closets stars to our sun, Alpha Centauri A, B and the star next to us, Proxima Centauri. So if a yet unconfirmed planet capable of supporting life is discovered there it would indeed be the closest to us. So when one just throws out the idea of life sustaining exoplanets why not choose the closest neighbor to base that on? It increases the possibility of life ever visiting the earth exponentially. It seems one only has to throw about an idea to create a spirited discussion with no regards to plausible or science supported hypotheses.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by descartes90
I was reading about the system on Wikipedia, apparently, like Z. Reticuli, it is a binary system composed of 2 Sun-like yellow stars. The metal content is similar to our sun, and though there is no evidence of brown dwarfs or gas giants there, it's speculated there could be planets there.

Have you ever heard of any cases of ETs from the Alpha Centauri system?


As Alpha Centauri is a star, or a pair of stars, it is highly unlikely that there is life on it/them.
Unless there are planets circulating around it/them that may be able to support life
Just like there is no life on our sun, but ther is life on planet Earth.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rev_Godslapper

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by descartes90
 


alpha centuri is a star - so no , there is negligable chance it is inhabited

is alpha centruri orbited by an inhabitted planet ? - unknown - we have yet to even see evidence of planets - let alone life in that system


Our Sun is a star. It is inhabited (humans, monkeys, cats, dogs) by a planet called Earth. We have evidence that planets exists because we kind of live on one.

Alpha centuri is probobly not a star system that harbors life. But there is evidence that life may exist on other pieces of rock.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 5/18/2011 by Rev_Godslapper because: (no reason given)


See I agree with this post.....

Alpha Centauri more than likely has life in the orbiting planets (or moons) around it.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Mind explaining where you are deriving chance from? Any data to make this claim a supported one? Or do you just like to make wild speculation because it's fun?



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sailor Sam

Originally posted by descartes90
I was reading about the system on Wikipedia, apparently, like Z. Reticuli, it is a binary system composed of 2 Sun-like yellow stars. The metal content is similar to our sun, and though there is no evidence of brown dwarfs or gas giants there, it's speculated there could be planets there.

Have you ever heard of any cases of ETs from the Alpha Centauri system?


As Alpha Centauri is a star, or a pair of stars, it is highly unlikely that there is life on it/them.
Unless there are planets circulating around it/them that may be able to support life
Just like there is no life on our sun, but ther is life on planet Earth.


I said from the system, which of course would include the planets, moons etc. I should have clarified.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by descartes90
 

We haven't found any planets orbiting the Alpha Centauri stars, but planet-finding is in its infancy, and our planet-finding techniques are far from perfect. There may still be planets there, but we have yet to find them.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join