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.

 

UFOs are Machine Intelligence

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by wemadetheworld
 


Its a good supposition that you pose. One of the top SETI researchers (I forget his name) has spoken on this topic (also didn't keep track of the URL, sorry).

He theorizes that given our own evolution of using machine and computers, and the fact that any space-faring race would be thousands, if not millions, of years more advanced than us earthlings, that such advanced civilizations very well will have developed into some form of machine intelligence. So even if their "kind" do come to earth, they may still be machines and artificial computers (where as we're organic computers, if you will).

That our first first space probes, as well as the vast majority of all space missions, were/are all unmanned would suggest that alien interstellar missions would also likely be "unmanned".

From what I have learned about wormholes, perhaps what would make the most sense for distant space travel is, if wormhole creation is possible/viable, is to create the two ends/openings of a wormhole and transport one, in an unmanned vehicle, to a distant star system (which would take a very long time of course), thereby creating a long wormhole corridor for traveling in a reasonable time to a distant star system.

As for the poster who disputes this notion because of alien landing sightings and interactions, the burden of proof is still on you and those claiming to have seen aliens. Until there's real, incontrovertible evidence of alien beings visiting earth, this theory of alien, unpiloted probes needn't account for supposed alien visitor viewings. A good theory needn't account for unproven phenomena. For that matter, even if some of these purported sightings of aliens are legitimate, who's to say that these beings aren't actually machines that appear to be living beings, i.e something like an android?




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan

However, if your interest is "cheaper" space travel, the ULTIMATE technology is bacterial... Bacteria can traverse the most hostile interplanetary and interstellar space, riding in asteroids and comets. Self-replicating bacteria are, therefore, the most expedient means of spreading complex LIFE throughout the Universe.

There's no reason to waste time and resources transporting big, nasty, bulky humans or other primates from one star system to another. Life is Life, is it not? Send bacteria and allow it to do its job.

Our ultimate objective in this Universe is to launch LIFE away into the void without any hope of ever hearing an echo from it.

The most economic and efficient way to do that is to launch BACTERIA off into the vastness. Engineer the bacteria any way you wish; but DON'T try to send monkeys and humans and your MACHINES off into the void — sustained by trillions of dollars investment — because they'll never survive.

Hate to break it to you, but humanity and its primitive machines will NEVER reach far into the future. Our species and our technology is decidedly FINITE.

Bacteria, on the other hand, WILL reach billions of years into the future, with minimal investment in life support and technology.


edit on 4-1-2012 by ZeskoWhirligan because: (no reason given)


You may very well be correct about humans and our relatively primitive machines not making it to other solar systems, let alone colonizing such systems. But what about more highly evolved beings and far more complicated machines? Consider an advanced primate species, which to us is analogous to us compared to Neanderthal Man or even Homo Erectus. Our stone age tools were more advanced than those of either of these two other hominid species. Who's to say that a more advanced species of ape won't develop from us, which will be able create technology beyond Homo Sapiens' ability?

However, where do you come up with the notion that it is "our ultimate objective" is to propagate life throughout the cosmos? It seems like propagation of one's own species is the main objective. We worry about our offspring surviving -- the bacteria that makes up 70% of our fecal matter, not so much.

Also, as far as sending life out to the cosmos, it seems that viruses are a lot more robust than bacteria, and hence are better suited to interstellar travel than bacteria -- if such pan-spermic travel actually happens. I doubt it myself. Fossil evidence shows that bacteria have evolved greatly from very primitive early life forms on earth; it seems far more likely that these early life forms themselves and their forerunners were generated from simple, random chemical reactions rather than making a trip aboard a dust speck or asteroid that travelled hundreds or thousands of light years. If and when some extraterrestrial microbial lifeform is discovered on an asteroid or meteorite, then I'll be more amenable to the Pan-Spermia hypothesis.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan

In fact, there are creatures right here on Earth who are far more organized and technically accomplished than Humans.

A lowly spider, for instance, can single-handedly produce a silken compound from its abdomen that is 6 times stronger than steel, and use it to construct the proportionate equivalent of a 100-story building in just a few hours. That same spider can then chemically modify its versatile silk to trap live prey many times larger than itself. That same spider can then use its silk to manufacture para-sails and actually fly away on the breeze.

The spider has thus mastered chemistry, architecture, hunting and aeronautics, and done so WITHOUT Science or Math or any of the other tedious Human skills we associate with intelligence.

Now, imagine an alien "civilization" that functions the way spiders do...

These creatures might excel in chemistry and engineering and aeronautics and perhaps even space travel without EVER understanding the Periodic Table of the Elements or Organic Chemistry or Calculus or anything else that we associate with intelligence.

There are countless organisms on Earth alone that can spontaneously produce light from their own bodies. There are terrestrial organisms that can produce powerful (even lethal) electrical charges, for that matter. There are complex life forms on this planet that can survive with ice crystals in their bloodstreams.

What we do know is that all these millions of diverse life forms are NATURALLY capable of the most astonishing feats of survival without an inkling of an idea of Human Science.

What should this tell us?

It should tell us that the great majority of Life in the Universe is capable of the most amazing feats of survival and engineering without EVER understanding Human Logic, Human Math, and Human Science. Without a doubt, there are creatures out there in the vast depth of Space that DWARF Human technology into insignificance, and they do so NATURALLY, without any sort of Science whatsoever.

If we venture into space on a quest to locate near-human intelligence as our ultimate objective (as in Star Trek), we're going to be very, very horribly surprised.



To claim that spiders have mastered chemistry and other fields better than humans is hyperbole. Through evolution, including random chemical reactions, spider species have indeed developed abilities human haven't yet attained; however, I don't see arachnids intentionally expanding their technology or biologically improving themselves to emulate other creatures' capabilities. And I'll bet you any amount of money that humans will have developed a technical mastery of spinning spider silk before spiders develop apposable thumbs.

That said, does life evolve in exactly the same way everywhere in the universe? Not necessarily. Sure, assuming the same laws of physics apply, there will be certain physiological similarities and such, but there could well be non-carbon-based lifeforms, for example. What would have happened on earth if some of the various mass extinctions didn't occur? Perhaps reptillian lifeforms would have developed greater brain sizes and become technology wielders, thereby maintaining a superiority over mammals, in particular those pesky, uppity primates.

But to say that on earth there are species more advanced than us and better suited than us at attaining space travel seems silly. Are there many species well-adapted to their environment? Definitely. Are some or many of them able to do things that humans can't or haven't yet mastered technology for doing? Sure. But have any others shown the ability to develop technology which allows them to dominate most other environments and extend their abilities with technology as humans have. No.

And back to your bacteria-spreading Pan Spermia for just a second: Given that it's taken life 3+ billion years to develop to its present state on earth, and this amount of time is about 1/5th the apparent age of the universe, it seems that spreading life through the cosmos in the form of bacteria or even viruses would be a very slow and inefficient way to do so, even on a cosmological scale. Sure, it would take less energy and technology than transporting primates or what have you, but the pay off would be very low.

Spreading life throughout the stars really would involve spreading entire ecosystems. If we were to attempt to colonize another planet, we'd take all the flora and fauna with us that we could. Earthbound colonists have always brought what they could in terms of the lifeforms they used. Europeans brought domesticated bees and livestock as well as plants, as did Polynesians settling the Pacific islands. If all they were interested in was spreading life, per se, then they would just have smeared some poo on a plank and shoved it out to sea.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

To claim that spiders have mastered chemistry and other fields better than humans is hyperbole. Through evolution, including random chemical reactions, spider species have indeed developed abilities human haven't yet attained; however, I don't see arachnids intentionally expanding their technology or biologically improving themselves to emulate other creatures' capabilities. And I'll bet you any amount of money that humans will have developed a technical mastery of spinning spider silk before spiders develop apposable thumbs.


You do understand what I'm saying, don't you?

Just because WE Humans are highly adaptable doesn't mean that another intelligent life form MUST necessarily meet our adaptive expectations. Other intelligent life forms might, indeed, SPECIALIZE in such a way as to develop very highly advanced propulsion and other engineering systems, but they might be able to do so through instinct alone, with no adaptive behavior, with no math or science. As do spiders.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

And back to your bacteria-spreading Pan Spermia for just a second: Given that it's taken life 3+ billion years to develop to its present state on earth, and this amount of time is about 1/5th the apparent age of the universe, it seems that spreading life through the cosmos in the form of bacteria or even viruses would be a very slow and inefficient way to do so, even on a cosmological scale. Sure, it would take less energy and technology than transporting primates or what have you, but the pay off would be very low.


ALL we absolutely know for certain about LIFE is that it sort of POPPED into existence about half-a-billion years after the Earth was formed. I hate to keep reminding you all, but there is no evidence that there is any Life anywhere else in the Universe. We simply have not sampled LIFE beyond Earth. If it's out there, we don't know about it.

And that's the hard Scientific stance.

Sure, there may have been nano-bacteria on Mars three billion years ago, and there may be some sort of marine life on Europa (just give us a worm, for Godsake), and there MAY be extremophile environments everywhere from Venus to Jupiter to Saturn to Neptune.

But we just haven't found it....yet.

Finding Life outside of Earth is like finding WMD in Iraq. Hey, we KNOW it's out there. Just haven't found any trace of it.

Hey, I think that Life Happens as an inexorable electrochemical opportunity anywhere that it CAN happen. Everything else is necessarily colonization and the perpetuation of species, to be sure.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

To claim that spiders have mastered chemistry and other fields better than humans is hyperbole. Through evolution, including random chemical reactions, spider species have indeed developed abilities human haven't yet attained; however, I don't see arachnids intentionally expanding their technology or biologically improving themselves to emulate other creatures' capabilities. And I'll bet you any amount of money that humans will have developed a technical mastery of spinning spider silk before spiders develop apposable thumbs.


You do understand what I'm saying, don't you?

Just because WE Humans are highly adaptable doesn't mean that another intelligent life form MUST necessarily meet our adaptive expectations. Other intelligent life forms might, indeed, SPECIALIZE in such a way as to develop very highly advanced propulsion and other engineering systems, but they might be able to do so through instinct alone, with no adaptive behavior, with no math or science. As do spiders.



I guess I didn't quite understand that what you were saying. Apparently you're suggesting that some lifeforms, through natural selection, may have developed propulsion systems/means to travel across space, as well as the capacity to live in deep space during the transit. And I would have thought that they would first develop capacities to successfully live in their environment on their world...

To be clear, spiders didn't develop web spinning technology through instinct, it came about from adaptive mutations; they just use it by instinct. For some species to adaptively mutate to be able to attain escape velocity from its mother planet and to withstand the environmental rigors of space (near absolute zero temperature, radiation, near-complete vacuum and no food for possibly thousands or millions of year) seems highly unlikely. I acknowledge there are plenty of things under heaven and Earth than aren't dreamt of in either my or Horatio's philosophies, but I'd say this supposition of yours is most infeasible to say the least, and that the OP's suggestion of machine intelligence being the likely culprit if we indeed have had or will have ET visitations is a much more likely possibility.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
I guess I didn't quite understand that what you were saying. Apparently you're suggesting that some lifeforms, through natural selection, may have developed propulsion systems/means to travel across space, as well as the capacity to live in deep space during the transit. And I would have thought that they would first develop capacities to successfully live in their environment on their world...

For some species to adaptively mutate to be able to attain escape velocity from its mother planet and to withstand the environmental rigors of space (near absolute zero temperature, radiation, near-complete vacuum and no food for possibly thousands or millions of year) seems highly unlikely. I acknowledge there are plenty of things under heaven and Earth than aren't dreamt of in either my or Horatio's philosophies, but I'd say this supposition of yours is most infeasible to say the least, and that the OP's suggestion of machine intelligence being the likely culprit if we indeed have had or will have ET visitations is a much more likely possibility.


You should know that bacterial life forms DO have the capacity to survive for YEARS in the absence of air, water and nutrition, as well as in zero-gravity, in the impossible cold of Space, and under the harshest bombardment of radiation, and that NASA has quietly acknowledged this FACT for nearly 50 years...

NASA: Earth Microbes on the Moon

NASA doesn't deny that bacteria are entirely capable of surviving environments that humans and machines cannot survive; but they don't popularize the fact, either.

The reason for this is obvious — our space programs, at present, are entirely politically-driven. You can't garner public support for a million-year mission, okay? We must appeal for support of missions that can be accomplished quickly, well within the lifespan of the average human being — which, as it happens, is an impossible prerequisite for deep space exploration, both for humans and machines.

The most intelligent form of deep space colonization is to genetically program bacteria, insert them into inert chunks of rock, and hurl these stones out into the void, allowing them to fall where they may. Which would cost, what? A billionth of the cost of your average manned mission? A millionth of the cost of your average space probe?

I suggest that this is precisely how Life is disseminated throughout the Universe, except that Nature takes care of the interstellar propulsion by means of asteroid impact, which not only delivers new bacteria to the surface of far-flung worlds, but also launches bacteria from these planets' surfaces into Space.

We already have samples of fossilized bacteria from Mars right here on Earth, but humans have never set foot on Mars — the Mars bacterial specimens we possess were dislodged by asteroid impact from the Martian surface millions of years ago and drifted through Space to land on Earth about 13,000 years ago.

I'm not saying that Life came to Earth from Mars. It seems fairly obvious that Life died out (or was exterminated) on Mars billions of years ago, for whatever reason, and that the fossilized bacteria were probably already billions of years old BEFORE they were dislodged from the Martian surface. But the fact remains that fossilized Martian bacteria arrived on Earth by way of asteroid collision.

Even NASA acknowledges that bacteria can survive the rigors of the most hostile Space environment for years at a time. We should also acknowledge that, if Life can survive in a frozen vacuum under harsh radioactive bombardment for years at a time, there is a possibility that SOME Life may THRIVE in a vacuum, in zero-gravity, WITHOUT air or water or food, and that it may even EVOLVE into higher species under those conditions.

I'm saying that, yes, there may indeed be Life forms that LIVE in the Void, in the impossibly hostile vacuum of Space. There may even be highly evolved and technically advanced life forms that avoid the little islands of rock and gas and Gravity that we call planets.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan

Pardon, but there IS NO DATA to support a discussion of "extraterrestrial machine intelligence"... It's pure bunk, pure nonsense.


There is "no data", so it's "pure bunk" and "nonsense", you say? Isn't there a bit of a problem with that argument, logically speaking? How can a person know if something is pure bunk or nonsense without any data?

We're all just speculating here, correct? Isn't that the purpose of the thread? (Yes, it is; see the title.) And how COULD it be anything other than speculation, given that there is no evidence of life elsewhere?

If you're suggesting that there's solid evidence of panspermia, then quite a few people would love to see that evidence! And if you're relying on the Mars meteorite (ALH84001) and NASA's mid-1990's claims for that... well, to say that those claims are highly disputed is to put it very kindly. I'd love to see the claims confirmed as much as anyone, but the scientific opinion since then seems to indicate that no firm conclusions can be drawn right now. Hopefully scientists will develop the tools and methods needed to clarify the issue in the near future....

So again, as to machine intelligence and panspermia, we're ALL just speculating. You included. And there's nothing wrong with that. This is just a friendly discussion about *possibilities* the way I read it. So relax, okay? ;-) You have some interesting thoughts, and I've enjoyed this thread when it's been able to stay on-topic.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
This is just a friendly discussion about *possibilities* the way I read it. So relax, okay? ;-) You have some interesting thoughts, and I've enjoyed this thread when it's been able to stay on-topic.


Relax? If I was any more relaxed I'd be snoring.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
If you're suggesting that there's solid evidence of panspermia, then quite a few people would love to see that evidence! And if you're relying on the Mars meteorite (ALH84001) and NASA's mid-1990's claims for that... well, to say that those claims are highly disputed is to put it very kindly.


Nevermind kindness, NASA is on the record saying that they're 95% certain the anomalies of ALH84001 are representative of fossilized bacteria.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan


You should know that bacterial life forms DO have the capacity to survive for YEARS in the absence of air, water and nutrition, as well as in zero-gravity, in the impossible cold of Space, and under the harshest bombardment of radiation, and that NASA has quietly acknowledged this FACT for nearly 50 years...

NASA: Earth Microbes on the Moon

NASA doesn't deny that bacteria are entirely capable of surviving environments that humans and machines cannot survive; but they don't popularize the fact, either.

The reason for this is obvious — our space programs, at present, are entirely politically-driven. You can't garner public support for a million-year mission, okay? We must appeal for support of missions that can be accomplished quickly, well within the lifespan of the average human being — which, as it happens, is an impossible prerequisite for deep space exploration, both for humans and machines.

The most intelligent form of deep space colonization is to genetically program bacteria, insert them into inert chunks of rock, and hurl these stones out into the void, allowing them to fall where they may. Which would cost, what? A billionth of the cost of your average manned mission? A millionth of the cost of your average space probe?

I suggest that this is precisely how Life is disseminated throughout the Universe, except that Nature takes care of the interstellar propulsion by means of asteroid impact, which not only delivers new bacteria to the surface of far-flung worlds, but also launches bacteria from these planets' surfaces into Space.

We already have samples of fossilized bacteria from Mars right here on Earth, but humans have never set foot on Mars — the Mars bacterial specimens we possess were dislodged by asteroid impact from the Martian surface millions of years ago and drifted through Space to land on Earth about 13,000 years ago.

...

Even NASA acknowledges that bacteria can survive the rigors of the most hostile Space environment for years at a time. We should also acknowledge that, if Life can survive in a frozen vacuum under harsh radioactive bombardment for years at a time, there is a possibility that SOME Life may THRIVE in a vacuum, in zero-gravity, WITHOUT air or water or food, and that it may even EVOLVE into higher species under those conditions.

I'm saying that, yes, there may indeed be Life forms that LIVE in the Void, in the impossibly hostile vacuum of Space. There may even be highly evolved and technically advanced life forms that avoid the little islands of rock and gas and Gravity that we call planets.



That's an interesting citation (the NASA one); I wasn't aware that bacteria could handle near vacuum conditions and radiation so well (one caveat is that there are different types of radiation, and I suspect that radiation-resistant bacteria aren't so resistant to high-energy cosmic rays, although they would could be protected within a rock or some other vessel). Had forgotten that they could lie dormant for millions of years. So your point is well taken. One question: has it been verified that the possible fossilized bateria from Mars indeed have said provenance, or is it still the verdict still out?

I do still wonder about the altruism needed for some intelligent species to attempt to spread microbial life into the cosmos. And I also still question the efficacy of this method because of the time for advanced lifeforms to develop from more primitive bacteria or viruses. Also, flinging microbe-laden rocks off a planet relies a lot on random factors: how could they be flung just to the right solar system, and then get to just the right planet or planetoid in said system? And what about the likelihood of such rocks burning up as meteors when falling onto such planets? Or encountering unforeseen obstacles along the way? Seems an intelligently piloted craft has a much better chance of getting somewhere and avoiding these pitfalls.

How about this, a hybrid solution: use artificial intelligence to pilot a spacecraft that can then release a plethora of types of microbial life once it has reached a promising destination. This way one can still take advantage of the robustness of microbes, including their longevity, but also most directly target promising target worlds and avoiding burning up in the atmosphere. Such a craft could conceivably take off again and travel farther out to even more worlds, spreading life with it.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Space is the most ubiquitous environment therefore once a microbe has evolved to live in space it can spread through the entire galaxy. It only takes a success ONCE. In the whole galaxy. In billions of years. Since we already know that Earth microbes can survive space conditions fairly handily the probability is as close to 100% that there are microbes that are just one step better adapted that happily travel and live their lives in space. In fact it is a lot more likely Earth was seeded with space faring microbes than that bacteria on Earth are coincidentally able to survive space and other planetary/moon conditions.

Other non conventional places that microbes could live in are molecular clouds and asteroid belts.
Another thing people forget about is that the solar system is whizzing through space and interacting with different areas over millions and billions of years, it's not a static picture. Comets also distribute material well because they can move in planes above and below the galactic disk. So there is lots more passive mixing going than people realise.

Here's some more ideas. Evolution is not one way, all evolution is is fitness to the local environment along with ability to survive. Microbes could have evolved from intelligent or multicellular organisms. Evolution is NOT directional. You see space is huge and evolution continues in each part of space independently.

Civilisations would also have the same effect, they would morph, split and change in different areas of the galaxy or universe.

Then you've got intelligent machines that are not neccessarily part of any civilisation, they are simply doing their own thing or organised in family grouping.

Then you've got the possibility of advanced creatures or machines with less intelligence than we credit them, but they possess basic responses and capabilities due to their instinct and evolution that is beyond our current technology's ability to detect them. Imagine the situation of microbes a few hundred years ago and you get the idea. All around us , dumb as hell in our way of thinking but there was no way for us to observe them , at least directly.

I think that machine intelligence is a given but there are probably levels beyond that too that we do not comprehend.
edit on 15-1-2012 by ManInAsia because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by ManInAsia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Another idea that should be explained- you don't end up with what you started.

Say I wanted to send a fleet of self replicating probes out into the universe, they have to be operate independently in different environments. Over many generations their original purpose and means of replication will evolve and it is very likely they will lose their original purpose.

However due to the need to replicate or die (if you don't replicate you are quickly outcompeted so evolution selects for the ones that are fittest) the descendants will continue to spread but not for the original reasons.

Folks, the driver of all this is evolution and it works exactly the same in space as it does on Earth. There is no need for altruistic spreading of life because that is what life does naturally. It seeks out new habitats and new sources of energy. It competes and replicates or dies out. It doesn't matter if the creatures are biological or machine based, the rules are the same.
edit on 15-1-2012 by ManInAsia because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by ManInAsia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Also, flinging microbe-laden rocks off a planet relies a lot on random factors: how could they be flung just to the right solar system, and then get to just the right planet or planetoid in said system?


What is "the right system," and what is "the right planet"...?

What we know about bacterial Life on Earth is that it apparently just sprang into existence about 500 million years after the planet had formed; indeed, it was as if bacterial life was seeded to an otherwise hostile and sterile world. In those earliest days of Earth's formation, the atmosphere and hydrosphere were chemically toxic to all Life as we know it today. No Life that we know today would have survived on the primordial Earth.

Yet SOME SORT of bacterial Life rapidly infested the Earth's poisonous oceans 3.5 BILLION years ago. That bacterial infestation eventually CHANGED Earth's environmental chemistry, making the planet more hospitable to higher life forms.

This is what I mean by engineering bacteria to seed other worlds. I'm not talking about bacteria that require a friendly medium in which to survive and thrive... I'm talking about a bacterium that is so tenacious that it can enter an utterly toxic environment and eventually alter that world into a more hospitable environment.

I'm talking about a bacterium that could, theoretically, seed a hellhole such as Venus or a deepfreeze such as Titan, or even a cometary body that endured cycles of extreme heat and cold and vacuum and radiation.

See, I think a Creator Species could, quite literally, bio-engineer such an all-purpose bacterium and cast handfuls of these "seeds" into the cosmos, and that Life would find a way to re-engineer the atmospheres and hydrospheres and land masses of ANY comet or planet it encountered.

We know that this is what happened on Earth — a poisonous little orb was transformed by Life into a lush garden planet. It may have happened on Mars. It may have happened on EVERY planet in our known Solar System, and we have YET to discern the fact.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Zesko, environments on planets vary so widely that there will never be one type of microbe that is suitable for colonization purposes. It's the same with the millions of different micro environments on earth.

I don't believe no life now could exist 4 billion years ago, some anerobic or other types of archae bacteria that still exist could probably thrive then.

Just for the record, it was plants that are supposed to have created so much oxygen which initially killed a lot of the existing anerobic life on Earth but later allowed other bigger and more complex multicellular organisms to exist with the oxygen boost now available for respiration.

What is toxic for one species is heaven for another.
edit on 15-1-2012 by ManInAsia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManInAsia
Just for the record, it was plants that are supposed to have created so much oxygen which initially killed a lot of the existing anerobic life on Earth but later allowed other bigger and more complex multicellular organisms to exist with the oxygen boost now available for respiration.


Just for the record, it was microscopic MARINE plant life that altered the hydrosphere and atmosphere of Earth into something resembling what we have today. Marine plant life today produces about 80% of all gaseous Oxygen on Earth — virtually ALL of Earth's terrestrial plants, forests, rainforests, et al, could be exterminated tomorrow without destroying the Oxygen content of Earth's atmosphere, as long as marine plants survived.

But where did these microscopic MARINE plants come from? Well, of course, they evolved out of microbial organisms which, in turn, had evolved from bacterial life forms.

The point is that, 3.5 BILLION years ago, bacterial life seemingly burst forth upon the toxic planet Earth and initiated the chemical transformation of the planet.

I contend that such bacteria are, in fact, the original seeds of Life cast out into the cosmos by a Creator species. And I think that bacterial seeding of other worlds is something we can do right now to facilitate the evolution of more hospitable worlds for our distant descendants.

I mean, the species Homo sapiens is not going to explore the cosmos as you see in these space operas such as Star Trek and Star Wars. We will have evolved into a completely new species before we're physically out there exploring our own galaxy, nevermind the infinitude of the Universe.

See, space fantasy has warped our perception of what Humankind can actually accomplish in space. Space is such a hostile environment to Humans that it's unlikely we can even reach Mars alive. What we know for a FACT is that humans do not fare well in microgravity for extended periods of time. Those who spend several months in low Earth orbit are so physically debilitated that they must be carried out of the return capsules, and must endure months — even years — of physical rehabilitation.

Space is deadly to Human beings, make no mistake. Who's going to carry out the debilitated astronauts who arrive on Mars for the first time? Nobody.

We need to radically adjust our priorities away from politically-motivated interplanetary colonization within the lifetime of a human being. It aint happening. We first need to bioengineer other worlds for many millennia before we ever attempt sending advanced multicellular organisms (such as Humans) out there.

We can bacterially seed Mars right now, start changing its atmosphere. Same thing with Europa, Titan, and dozens of other worlds right here in our own Solar System. Because we're going to be stuck here for tens of thousands of years, be assured.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I see you just completely ignored my point which was there is no single bacteria suitable for your Creator bacteria and also that what is toxic for one species is perfect for another. Humans don't do well in space now but with future technology it is possible for humans to conduct long term space travel.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManInAsia
I see you just completely ignored my point which was there is no single bacteria suitable for your Creator bacteria and also that what is toxic for one species is perfect for another. Humans don't do well in space now but with future technology it is possible for humans to conduct long term space travel.


I didn't ignore what you said; I'm just not going to limit the possibilities to what you think we know about the tenacity of bacterial life. Everything you think we know about Life is Earth-centric; it assumes that Earth is a goldilocks planet for Life; it assumes that Life must have air and water and nutrients and optimum temperature and so on and so forth.

I don't hold with that assumption. It's my contention that any world can support Life, once it has been infested with a primordial seed that evolves to alter the planetary environment. It's my contention that specialized machine intelligence and advanced technology are not at all necessary for spreading Life throughout the Cosmos.

Frankly, I think starships with "warp drives" and all that nonsense are entirely inefficient for exploring and colonizing deep space. The energy requirements alone for sending a crew of humans to the next nearest star would consume more resources than the Earth could spare for centuries.

That's always the bottleneck in science fantasy — what power source do we employ to not only propel a vessel across interplanetary distances at near-light-speed, but to maintain a living environment aboard that vessel for several years? Dilithium crystals? LOL

See, if you want to discuss Science, you don't just ignore physics and leap into science fantasy.

Face it, neither us nor our mechanized emissaries are going to reach the next nearest star within a meaningful time frame for modern Humanity. Our best bet is to hurl the seeds of Life out into the void and, yes, contaminate as many sterile worlds as possible with bacterial Life... such that, when our distant descendants FINALLY arrive on extra-Solar worlds, we may find organic resources that we seeded a million years earlier.




edit on 15-1-2012 by ZeskoWhirligan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Yes, I definately believe that some UFO's are, but not all.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Now, speaking to the OP once more, I do think that some UFOs are remote-controlled drones. On August 12th of of 2011, I reported such a "drone" to the National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC).

The thing appeared to be an amber-orange sphere crossing the sky from the NorthWest to the SouthEast, at 5:30 in the morning. I was smoking a cigarette on my front porch at the time. The UFO drew my interest when it slowed down and stopped in the sky. I descended the porch and stepped out into my front yard, facing North, looking up at this orange thing.

From a stationary position, the light suddenly made a series of darting moves, like a hummingbird, right?

At that point, I took off my glasses and cleaned them and rubbed my eyes. Put the glasses back on and looked up.

It was still there.

It winked at me.

I took a step to the left, and the light darted a short distance. I stepped again and the light darted again. It was responding to me, I thought.

This was disconcerting, because I was under the impression that the light was high up in the sky, like air traffic. But, since it was responding to my moves, I reconsidered that the thing must be at treetop level.

As I was wrapping my head around this new perspective, the light began to rock in a pendulum fashion. I remember thinking That's typical UFO behavior... And I was aware of what looked like a filament in the center of the light. Yeah, like a light bulb.

Suddenly, the orange light shot straight up into the sky, receding in the distance, then resumed its SouthEasterly course. It accelerated, made a fishtail move and ZIP...was gone.

As I've said before, if this is a machine, a drone, then it's so far beyond our technology that there's no comparison. If it IS our technology, if this WAS man-made, it's such a superior contraption that our enemies had better just GIVE UP right now.

Because that thing could be on you and away in a heartbeat.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join