Could Some Alien Worlds Be More Habitable Than Earth?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


How much of an impact does living on earth have on the way we think would you suppose?

Cosmic resonance in mind.

Wrabbit2000
I'm just a simple bunny...but it seems to me that nowhere but Earth is better suited to the life on Earth. Nothing particularly special about Earth, perhaps, and I think we'll actually come to see that as very true once we move into deep space and across the distances to other systems.

It's just that life has evolved specifically to this climate, gravity, temperature range and eco-system for life we share it with. Kinda...tailor made Earthlings by natural process, aren't we?

You do have a point.

Yes other planets there could be some with better climate and chemical models eg a world without extreme weather, volcanos ect

But humans have evolved round other living things on earth. Naturaly for me im thinking of micro organisms, the million we co exist with and which we would die without. On another planet we could very well be in a lot of trouble if there micro orgnisms are too foreign, even if they are not pathogenic in the traditional sense they could overwelhm the bacteria living on our skin and in our gut leading to a pretty nasty death of starvation or skin infections.

reply to post by crazyewok


Very War of the Worlds...

What is 'more habitable' though? I think that life in the very sense of the word is adaptive to its own specific planet and while a planet may be more habitable I agree that it may not be more habitable for Humans.

reply to post by onequestion


Hmmm.... You mean how dependent are we on Earth's unique characteristics and perhaps space around this region for how we function and think? (not sure if I got it) If that's what you mean.. Interesting question. You might even be able to identify the threshold point too, IMO...since Voyagers went through what I guess would form a 360 degree 'stationary' bubble around us. I recall reading that was a bit more than expected too.. Quite a bit more... Maybe that forms a different type but no less important environment for us to live in..?

reply to post by JadeStar


This is all great, but shouldn't we focus on searching for worlds with atmospheres like our own, regardless of saturation and situation within the "goldilocks zone"? If you find a "super habitable" world, but its atmospheric composition is no good to us, what is the point? I mean, it would be great to find life, but even once we do, the chances that the life is sufficiently advanced to communicate with us is very slim.

We need to be looking for worlds nearby that we can seed with life and colonize. This should be our primary goal. Secondary, sure, look for life elsewhere. But don't get your hopes up about visiting any time soon. We need to be working on a SERIOUS effort to colonize Mars. And we should have started 10 years ago. We should already have an outpost there.

Anyways, thanks for the info dump. I have no doubts you guys will eventually find an alien world with life. I just worry about AFTER that. Then what??? Gotta figure out communication first, and that will only happen if the world is looking back at us.

Oh yeah, reminds me...those that think along the lines of "well sure, there may be an ultra advanced species out there that can traverse the stars, but why would they ever come here. Would they ever even find us?"... of course they would. Cuz they'll be running programs like this too. They will know where to go long before they ever have the capability. This is LONG TERM knowledge you guys are looking to catalogue.

The more I give thought to this discovering Aliens topic, the more I think that if we do discover anyone (speaking civilizationally as opposed to biologically inclusive of everything) in a goldilocks zone, they, whatever they turn out to be, I suspect they will likely be quite close in development technology-wise as us, and/or remnants/thowbacks/luddites from a post-biological civilization.

Why?

Post-biological is why.
Given how close (we think) we are to AI, such event will, if it does occur, eventually usher us into a post-biological expression, at least among those of us who choose to go that route in considering the durability and many other advantages such might offer.

Why wouldn't machines/post-biologicals inhabit a goldilocks zone?
Overclocking.
Our computers like it cold.
Information technologies we have, are developing, and have even just given hypothesis are all more efficient at cooler temperatures.
It would stand to reason that any machine intelligence and/or post biologicals, given a choice in matters of efficiency in operation, and longevity, if not out actively exploring the Universe, or at some other task, would set up shop and home where the best heat-sinks are; colder places in space.

I propose candidates for higher likelihood of machine intelligence and/or post-biological might very well be found in some of the coldest places in the Galaxy, and Universe at large.

That'd be an interesting project to pitch; slotting time slots to image what should be the coldest places, where then the data collected and later combed over could blip IR (at the least) that shouldn't be wherever "there" is.

Eh.
Just a thought.

Goldilocks Aliens, in my opinion, are likely biological.
That should be a no-brainer, but, given the age of most stars in our Galaxy, it might be the cold places we should be looking where Goldilocks planets will be full of archaeology.

mebbe?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Hmmm.... You mean how dependent are we on Earth's unique characteristics and perhaps space around this region for how we function and think?

Yes Wrabbit.

Its also apart of a theory i have on why all alien life on the earth originated on the earth and why we dont leave the earth for extended period of time.

reply to post by JadeStar


you may not realize this, or maybe you do. With deeper, larger oceans there will be more extreme weather patterns...

Think about a planet with hurricanes larger and stronger than earth, larger waves and tides. More rain fall due to more water simply being present. A planet that is too wet doesn't sound that favorable or pleasant really. It would also make life as we are familiar with extremely difficult

Hijinx
reply to post by JadeStar

 

you may not realize this, or maybe you do. With deeper, larger oceans there will be more extreme weather patterns...

Think about a planet with hurricanes larger and stronger than earth, larger waves and tides. More rain fall due to more water simply being present. A planet that is too wet doesn't sound that favorable or pleasant really. It would also make life as we are familiar with extremely difficult

Actually that depends on said planet's moon, if applicable.

If not for our moon here life may have never developed.

Hijinx
reply to post by JadeStar

 

you may not realize this, or maybe you do. With deeper, larger oceans there will be more extreme weather patterns...

Think about a planet with hurricanes larger and stronger than earth, larger waves and tides. More rain fall due to more water simply being present. A planet that is too wet doesn't sound that favorable or pleasant really. It would also make life as we are familiar with extremely difficult

It would be similar to a larger Amazon rainforest. I don't see the harshness in that. In being so simple though, that climate paves the way for the most beautiful exotic creatures. I can only dream about such things.

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by JadeStar

 

We need healthier environment within scientific community, I mean who knows how many geniuses are there being afraid to publish their papers in scare of ridicule, that's the problem I'm seeing.

You'll find that is becoming less and less of an issue. I've seen some very "way out there" papers from people who are still considered highly credible.

The fact is, if you can back up an outlandish concept with solid math or observational data it will be considered for publication. Peer review doesn't mean that out there ideas get squashed down. It just means they are scrutinized in greater detail (as well they should be.)

Oh, I hope soon, I'd like to see from you some papers published on astrobiology and your ideas on how would you be looking for life elsewhere, I'm sure you have a couple of aces on your sleeves

Alas,

I am just an undergrad for now. It will be quite a few years before I show up on ArVix. You'll be happy to know most astrobiologist are always thinking out of the box.

There is nothing wrong with speculation so long as it follows the rules of physics and chemistry. True innovation and discovery often comes from thinking well outside of the box.

I've got some ideas that as I learn more, may be innovative ways to search for life and even intelligence in the universe in ways we are not doing now. But I'll keep that quiet for now until I see how viable they are.

LightAssassin
reply to post by JadeStar

 

Only a girl? You give me the impression you are a woman!!!

I am. Young woman.

reply to post by JadeStar

I've got some ideas that as I learn more, may be innovative ways to search for life and even intelligence in the universe in ways we are not doing now. But I'll keep that quiet for now until I see how viable they are.

Oh nice, please describe them because this is where i live and it might help the thread who knows!

Hijinx
reply to post by JadeStar

 

you may not realize this, or maybe you do. With deeper, larger oceans there will be more extreme weather patterns...

Think about a planet with hurricanes larger and stronger than earth, larger waves and tides. More rain fall due to more water simply being present. A planet that is too wet doesn't sound that favorable or pleasant really. It would also make life as we are familiar with extremely difficult

Atmospheric physics are interesting.

Having more water does not mean more hurricanes or winds.

Hurricanes and storms are a result of energy input from the Sun.

Having water is just a bonus.

If you put Mars where the Earth is, its dust storms would be even bigger and more violent.

A planet with more ocean and further from its star would have less energy input from the star, yet still would be habitable and could actually have more stable weather.

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by JadeStar

 

S+F for posting!

I thought you'd like it.
I wouldn't have been as thorough, and you've done a wonderful piece.

Thanks Alice!! And thanks for the tip. I knew about that paper but had not gotten around to reading it in detail so that popular article was a good synopsis. I'm glad you are looking out for this stuff too!!

reply to post by LightAssassin


brother, i have a feeling the red planet wont be more habitable (with the way we live on our planet right now)

currently, the only way to make it habitable is to terraforming it, but that is still a sci-fi until we find how to terraform a planet, imho

now let see what we are doing to earth.
instead of looking a way to improve life experience on earth, we spend most of money inventing weapons, 'enriching' our 'divide and conquer' systems (like religions, money, languages, skin colors, etc)
we are turning this planet into the second mars

there are two interesting theories:

life came from mars: m.space.com...

ancient nuclear blast in mars: www.foxnews.com...

These two give another (sci fi) theory: what if it was us who destroyed mars? now, we are repeating our habits on this planet.



-----------

thanks for this thread 'brother' JadeStar


peace.

onequestion
reply to post by JadeStar

 

I've got some ideas that as I learn more, may be innovative ways to search for life and even intelligence in the universe in ways we are not doing now. But I'll keep that quiet for now until I see how viable they are.

Oh nice, please describe them because this is where i live and it might help the thread who knows!

Well I will just give you a quick description of both.

"A nano-scale search for extraterrestrial technological intelligence".

and

"Micro-arcsecond resolution observation of gamma ray point sources to place an upper limit on the prevalence several exotic interstellar propulsion concepts in the Milky Way"

The first will look for nanobots (tiny robots).

The second will look for the "wake" of things like matter-antimatter propelled starships, starships which use a black hole to generate energy and the generator of an Albicurrie warp drive bubble.

I follow what Freeman Dyson said back in the 1960s: "Don't just look for what is likely. Look for what is detectable."

But like I said, I am just an undergrad, I am still doing the maths on both of these in my spare time to draw up a realistic observational strategy.

JadeStar

onequestion
reply to post by JadeStar

 

I've got some ideas that as I learn more, may be innovative ways to search for life and even intelligence in the universe in ways we are not doing now. But I'll keep that quiet for now until I see how viable they are.

Oh nice, please describe them because this is where i live and it might help the thread who knows!

Well I will just give you a quick description of both.

"A nano-scale search for extraterrestrial technological intelligence".

and

"Micro-arcsecond resolution observation of gamma ray point sources to place an upper limit on the prevalence several exotic interstellar propulsion concepts in the Milky Way"

The first will look for nanobots (tiny robots).

The second will look for the "wake" of things like matter-antimatter propelled starships, starships which use a black hole to generate energy and the generator of an Albicurrie warp drive bubble.

I follow what Freeman Dyson said back in the 1960s: "Don't just look for what is likely. Look for what is detectable."

But like I said, I am just an undergrad, I am still doing the maths on both of these in my spare time to draw up a realistic observational strategy.

How could you possibly differentiate between a warp bubble and an artificial gravitational lense?

reply to post by JadeStar


So would you agree with Neil Tyson when he postulates that we may not really know how to look for life in the universe based on what we view as life in the universe?

I think i said that correctly.

LightAssassin
reply to post by JadeStar

 

After reading through the Hill-Fish star map thread where you go into incredible detail (WHERE IS YOUR THREAD AND VIDEO...TUT TUT!!!)...including an Astronomy 101 class regarding stars and habitable zones...I was educated to the fact that we sit on the inner zone of the HZ.

Does this mean that eventually mars will be more habitable than Earth as our Sun expands further expanding the HZ outwards?

edit on 18-1-2014 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)

Hey there! Look for it in the next couple of months. I ended up talking with Stanton Friedman and I want to get more information on Marjorie Fish because I am ending the video with a tribute to her and her work since she created the original models and just passed away last summer.

She was a remarkable lady and a UFO skeptic btw. She worked her whole life as a technician at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Most people don't know that about her.

I'd be happy to discuss this more for you in the Aliens and UFOs forum.

I'm also working on another video right now which tracks our intentional messages beamed into space. It's a fun piece which includes some remarkable things I did not know before.

Did you know we beamed the sound and electrical waveform of the vaginal contractions of several Boston ballet dancers to 4 nearby star systems (two of which have exoplanets, one of which has more than one planet in its habitable zone?) Also we sent a Doritos ad to 47 Ursa Majoris and two Japanese radio astronomers got drunk on saki one night and sent a message using NASA's Deep Space Communications station in Goldstone, CA.

Some wild stuff in there, including a theremin performance of Gershwin's "Summertime". I'm including the actual images and sounds (except for that first one) in the video too.

I'm working on that video right now while I wait to hear from Stanton.