Excuse me if I'm wrong

Wouldn't life of some sort be on any planet? Or could it? I mean we survive with the help of water, air, etc.. Wouldn't other species (for lack of a better word) on their planets ADAPT to what is available to them?

Wouldn't they evolve?

Anyone picking up what I'm putting down?

There are more elements (or at least I think) than we have here on Earth, so why don't we consider that? We are constantly looking for "Earth-like" planets, but Earth cannot be the only possessors of all elements and substances in the universe like scientists seem to make it. Or at least that is how it comes off to me.

~Disclaimer- these are only my opinions**** share yours!

Be nice

reply to post by Jill89


I agree with you completely. There really is no telling what a life form that's evolved for millions of years ahead of us could possibly evolved from. I think that it's quite possible that certain lifeforms have evolved to a point where they are completely without physical form even. After all, physical form would probably become a hinderance to ones development and some point in their evolution.

I do however agree why scientists search for carbon based life on other planets and nothing else at this point. As science goes, it must NOT postulate the idea of say an argon based life form if it has never seen it to exist prior to our search for it. But yet again, science is not totally moot on this point. They have seen life evolve on earth in the strangest of places where they previously believed life could not exist.

reply to post by Jill89


The universe is all made up of the same stuff. We litterally are star dust made carnate. When stars die they disperse the elements around the universe.

reply to post by foodstamp


Thats not a life form thats energy. Lifeforms have substance. They live they eat they respire they eliminate waste. They dont twinkel like stars.

reply to post by karen61560


You could try telling that to the Twilight fans!! But I agree with the OP fully on this one!!

Originally posted by Jill89

There are more elements (or at least I think) than we have here on Earth, so why don't we consider that? We are constantly looking for "Earth-like" planets, but Earth cannot be the only possessors of all elements and substances in the universe like scientists seem to make it.

We DO consider that. It's just that it isn't a priority. Just saying there may be life based on argon instead of carbon is beyond theoretical and doesn't make it so. If you want to speculate on what argon-based life is like, go ahead. Science fiction writers certainly do.

We're looking for "Earth-like" planets for two basic reasons. One is that life there might resemble our own, i.e.: Be reconizable. The second reason is that we're not just looking for life. We're looking for a place to go where we can survive. Concentrating on gas giants because they might harbor some sort of life we can't even recognize is not time well-spent. If we ever find a planet that is earth-like, in the Goldilocks Zone, and is roughly the same size as Earth (most are much bigger so far), and relatively close, you can bet we'll put all our attention on that planet.

We're cataloging every gas giant found. Indeeed, every planet no matter what its characteristics. But the ones we are concentrating on are Earth-like for good reason.

I would like to bet that every planet in our universe has some kind of life on it,. Even the gas giants. Not saying every planet has aliens, but probably micro organisms of some kind. Attempting to guess the number of lifeforms our universe has is like trying to guess the number of words in a book, without knowing which book. In other words we don't have enough information. But i guess that mars is going to be a big player in finding out!

OP, I dont think there's any difference between life and energy. These are all names, convenient little subsections to explain what we dont realy understand.
Small organisms live, the eat, they do amozing stuff with their tiny little boddies. I cant remember the last time I looked in a microscope and was not amazed by what I saw. All life, all energies, are existance (another name). The do exist and if there's further potential more will follow.

Tiny things, like small rocks for instance, may look boring. You'd imagine,' my, how dull it must be to be a rock'. But you are only looking at a small part of the rock's life. If you we're god and viewed the rock say over 2 million years, it would be as fascinating as your life.

Point being, as long as there is an oppretunity, life will exist. Other species may live off nitrogen or other gasses. If methane has the potential to explode, why could it not convert that same energy into life? It's all energy, the existance of life is ultimately an interaction of energies.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Jill89


Yes, but it will most likely take billions of years for those organisms to develop

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by foodstamp

 

Thats not a life form thats energy. Lifeforms have substance.

Well, If were going to be overlly critical, It's not called energy either. Because formless energy is not conscious. Energy holds no feelings of regret or critical thinking. Energy by definition is vitality of action. No where near what would be considered a "form of life".

I'm using the term life form loosely yes. However, I think the majority of readers here understand what I mean. If you could exist in a formless state of consciousness by say, peering into our dimensions from a higher one. And be able to interact with the lower dimensions you peer into, then you would be a form of life in my book.

they live they eat they respire they eliminate waste. They dont twinkel like stars.

Again, if we are going to be overlly critical once again, This statement is not an accurate definition of life form either.

Anything sentient would be more accurate. For example, a computer with the same mental functions and processes as a human being would be considered a life form. An artificial one but a life form nonetheless. And they do not perform ANY of the physicall functions you mentioned above.

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Jill89

There are more elements (or at least I think) than we have here on Earth, so why don't we consider that? We are constantly looking for "Earth-like" planets, but Earth cannot be the only possessors of all elements and substances in the universe like scientists seem to make it.

We DO consider that. It's just that it isn't a priority. Just saying there may be life based on argon instead of carbon is beyond theoretical and doesn't make it so. If you want to speculate on what argon-based life is like, go ahead. Science fiction writers certainly do.

We're looking for "Earth-like" planets for two basic reasons. One is that life there might resemble our own, i.e.: Be reconizable. The second reason is that we're not just looking for life. We're looking for a place to go where we can survive. Concentrating on gas giants because they might harbor some sort of life we can't even recognize is not time well-spent. If we ever find a planet that is earth-like, in the Goldilocks Zone, and is roughly the same size as Earth (most are much bigger so far), and relatively close, you can bet we'll put all our attention on that planet.

We're cataloging every gas giant found. Indeeed, every planet no matter what its characteristics. But the ones we are concentrating on are Earth-like for good reason.

That was quite informative! I have to agree with you. I like the way you think (reasonably & with proof/examples), it is all so fascinating to me. Hopefully one day we will be able to leave this place. Thank you.

reply to post by Jill89


Because the Anunaki need Argon for their methane based atmosphere. The derivative of crude oil is
in the blood stream of humans within the 37 Elements as well as Argon.

I can only imagine that the Anunaki use mass shootings or sacrafices of sorts to restore their
atmosphere or something of the other that relates to Argon or Hydro Carbon elements.

reply to post by streetfightingman


The Earth has been around for billions of years. Wouldn't it make sense that other planets have been around for that long, too? Maybe even longer? They could exist billions of light years away that we may never discover. But they are still there. Which means they exist and evolve, i suppose.

reply to post by Jill89


Explanation: S&F!

I agree and many other people also do ... and here is why ...

1] Extremophiles on earth show that environment does matter .. but it is not an overiding factor most of the time for life to find a way to exploit that environemnt.

Extremophiles [wiki]

2] If the laws of the universe are the same everywhere inside that universe [note: the observable universe only ok ... the Cosmos is infinitely bigger ok] THEN chemistry is the same also.

Lorentz covariance [wiki]

3] Chemists say that CARBON basedl life on earth is not the only evolutionary path way possible.

Carbon-based life ONLY mindsets is refered to as carbon chauvinsim.

Carbon-based Life [wiki]

Carbon chauvinism [wiki]

4] And although silicon is a hard [thermodynamically] route for mother nature and evolution to follow by fact of chemcial processes and the energy efficiency that naturally comes with those chemic reactions .. it is cleary with reason and possible for life to exist based on that method.

Hypothetical types of biochemistry [wiki]

Hypothetical types of biochemistry: Silicon biochemistry [wiki]

Personal Disclosure: I hope this helps!

Hi there. I agree with what you say..

I also believe that life evolves within its natural environment.
The only thing that is the main problem is the scale of that development time.
Take Earth for example. As stated, scientists think about the goldie locks zone and how it best suits our own life form.
That's great if we are looking for possible planets to colonize/take over/support possible habitants with similar needs to us Earthlings.

Earth has been at it a while accordingly to science -

www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/jeffares_poole.html

www.astrobio.net...


Although Science conflicts with each other untill there is definate proof or something is widely supported.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

When science thinks out side the box and considers the number of possibilitys and ways life can develop then we can imagine quite a lot.
Different life forms on different planets. Life formal of all types. Think of all living creatures on Earth. Apply that to whatever planet there may be life on and whether said life is intelligent etc. That's a lot of life forms.

Earth -

m.guardian.co.uk...


Old article on different life form -

m.gizmodo.com...

This is just taking into account the norm... We could add to this and include the hypothesis that we were created by God/Aliens and that we didn't evolve. This intern could make more possibilitys that if we were created to inhabit this planet, then what's to stop us to say that Marvin the martain was not created to inhabit planet X?

eee.

I understand your idea. So, I wasn't sure myself, did just a little digging to see what the scientific community seems to think.

Here's the source for the comments below: Planetary Habitability

Planetary habitability is the measure of a planet's or a natural satellite's potential to develop and sustain life. Life may develop directly on a planet or satellite or be transferred to it from another body, a theoretical process known as panspermia. As the existence of life beyond Earth is currently uncertain, planetary habitability is largely an extrapolation of conditions on Earth and the characteristics of the Sun and Solar System which appear favourable to life's flourishing—in particular those factors that have sustained complex, multicellular organisms and not just simpler, unicellular creatures.

And there appears from the research being performed through use of the Kepler Space Observatory, there are many....MANY candidates out there.

In February 2011 the Kepler Space Observatory Mission team released a list of 1235 extrasolar planet candidates, including 54 that may be in the habitable zone.[20][21] Six of the candidates in this zone are smaller than twice the size of Earth.[20] A more recent study found that one of these candidates (KOI 326.01) is in fact much larger and hotter than first reported.[22] Based on the findings, the Kepler Team estimated there to be "at least 50 billion planets in the Milky Way" of which "at least 500 million" are in the habitable zone.

Peace!! ID

Originally posted by Jill89
Wouldn't life of some sort be on any planet? Or could it? I mean we survive with the help of water, air, etc.. Wouldn't other species (for lack of a better word) on their planets ADAPT to what is available to them?

Wouldn't they evolve?

Anyone picking up what I'm putting down?

There are more elements (or at least I think) than we have here on Earth, so why don't we consider that? We are constantly looking for "Earth-like" planets, but Earth cannot be the only possessors of all elements and substances in the universe like scientists seem to make it. Or at least that is how it comes off to me.

~Disclaimer- these are only my opinions**** share yours!

Be nice

Every planet/celestial body in the Universe does contain life. They are all inhabited. They are just not all in our dimension necessarily.

Nothing is random or by mistake. We Humans can't even fathom the enormity of what's REALLY out there.
Science, religion and academia really is doing modern man an injustice by keeping us in this box.

Sometimes we just have to close our eyes to see what's really going on.

Originally posted by Human_Alien


Every planet/celestial body in the Universe does contain life. They are all inhabited. .

Hey H_A! Really, not looking for an arguement, but, EVERY-planet/celestial body in the Universe does contain life?

Just for starters: Our Sun, a celestial body, right? Life, I don't think so. Our moon? I don't think so. Just sayin'

Peace!! ID

Originally posted by Jill89
Wouldn't life of some sort be on any planet? Or could it?

Check the blue book.

Originally posted by ItDepends

Originally posted by Human_Alien


Every planet/celestial body in the Universe does contain life. They are all inhabited. .

Hey H_A! Really, not looking for an arguement, but, EVERY-planet/celestial body in the Universe does contain life?

Just for starters: Our Sun, a celestial body, right? Life, I don't think so. Our moon? I don't think so. Just sayin'

Peace!! ID

Why not? Because we 3D creatures can't?

Not everything mimics us or life as we know it and that is where science failed us. We had a lot more innate wisdom thousands of years ago until this organized 'artificial intelligence' came along I tell ya!

So hopefully in time quantum psychics will right the wrong. They're already saying we live in at least an 11 dimensional Universe.What/who do you think that's for? Extra storage space?

Time to start thinking outside your little confined box a bit!

Hey, we don't have to think alike for me to like you, you know?