100% proof of life on other planets.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: tonycodes


One day, some of Earth's remnants will become comets for other species to study and come to the same conclusion you did.

Wouldn't the impact required to break the Earth into pieces evaporate all of the water?

a reply to: watchitburn

?!



Yeah... I'll have a couple of pints

originally posted by: tonycodes

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: tonycodes

I’m pretty sure they reference comets as having normal H20 ice.

Please source something other than you being "pretty sure"

It just seems to me that the consensus among the greater science community is that there is an abundance of normal H2O in comets and asteroids out in space.

Notice the "may have" , etc.. ?
Does not sound like a 100% surety...
And definitely not accredited source.

originally posted by: Parishna

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: tonycodes

originally posted by: Gothmog

And if you find water, you will find life living in it.

Right......
NOT

I’m sure there are exceptions but I am confident in the logic that lots of comets = lots of H20 in space = 100% fact that there is enough water in space to create life. I just don’t think that much water in space can exist without other life besides us existing too.

Careful what when folks say the word "water".
It helps their cause by stating water instead of liquid
Even noticed that mistake in terminology coming from NASA themselves
Well , it could be normal water. Or ammonia , etc...

Some places, methane snows.

But I think only someone convoluting the point would not assume the idea is liquid water..

"Would you like a drink of water?"
"Yes please, I am parched!!" *gulps* *GAGS*
"Ha ha fooled you, it was hexane, got ya!"

Yet , it happens
AN ocean of ammonia. Folks only see the word "ocean"

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: tonycodes

You just put the cart before the horse and spent the rest of the thread trying to prove that the horse is really a horse and not an ox.

I just think I am here to solve the worlds biggest problems with the most simplistic answers, like the protein that egg shells are made out of only comes from hens, so the chicken came first. Seems like if there is so much H2O in comets and asteroids around the galaxy than it’s not possible to say life doesn’t exist on other planets with liquid water in them. Alien life is not confirmed yet and it should be considering the amount of H2O floating around out there.

a reply to: tonycodes

I think that alliances or accommodation were made with "aliens".

They get to kidnap a few hoomans and live underground or "shape shift"

In return Governments were given alien tech.




www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538127304&sr=8-1&keywords=larry+holcombe

by Larry Holcombe
details the secret history of UFOs and the corresponding presidential administration. Starting in 1941 with the Roosevelt administration, author Larry Holcombe examines the startling discoveries facing a president preoccupied by WWII, the explosion of UFO sightings during the Truman years, first contact during the Eisenhower administration, and the possibility of a UFO connection to the Kennedy assassination.

In 1975, the Nixon administration came very close to admitting that UFOs exist by funding a documentary by Robert Emenegger. Almost 40 years later, this book will examine Emenegger's findings.

Notice the "may have" , etc.. ?
Does not sound like a 100% surety...
And definitely not accredited source.


Sure, I still think the entire screenshot makes a consensus for livable H2O being in a lot of comets and asteroids as oppose to toxic water. Here is a quote from EarthSky.org as well.

“Besides life, the biggest thing that distinguishes the Earth from other planets in the solar system is the presence of copious amounts of liquid water. Water molecules have been found in nebulae in distant reaches of the galaxy, so water itself isn’t uncommon in the universe”

a reply to: SaturnFX

what could survive there?

Viruses?


www.pnas.org...

Abstract

Viruses of extreme thermophiles are of great interest because they serve as model systems for understanding the biochemistry and molecular biology required for life at high temperatures. In this work, we report the discovery, isolation, and preliminary characterization of viruses and virus-like particles from extreme thermal acidic environments (70–92°C, pH 1.0–4.5) found in Yellowstone National Park.

Six unique particle morphologies were found in Sulfolobus enrichment cultures. Three of the particle morphologies are similar to viruses previously isolated from Sulfolobus species from Iceland and/or Japan. Sequence analysis of their viral genomes suggests that they are related to the Icelandic and Japanese isolates. In addition, three virus particle morphologies that had not been previously observed from thermal environments were found. These viruses appear to be completely novel in nature.

a reply to: muSSang

reminds me of the Fermi paradox,

You need to get upto date

wiki

Criticism of logical basis The Fermi paradox has been criticized as being based on an inappropriate use of propositional logic. According to a 1985 paper by Robert Freitas, when recast as a statement in modal logic, the paradox no longer exists, and carries no probative value.

Now bear in mind that we are dealing with philosophy here the following stands up to logic.


medium.com...@johnrobb/can-we-even-see-alien-intelligence-67ddbc888f9d

So far, there have been many attempts to refute the paradox, but none of these provide a quantifiable mechanism for doing so.

One way to do this might be found in Arthur C. Clarke’s famous quote:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Essentially, this insight provides us with a clue to drawing quantifiable information out of Fermi’s paradox.

Translated to our needs: What if we when we look at the stars for signs of advanced civilizations, we don’t recognize their technological artifacts and perceived advanced behaviors for what they are?

For example: a tribesman standing in a field 1,000 years ago might see a modern aircraft flying overhead as a magical or godlike bird.

This insight becomes even more useful if we take it to the next level:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature.

In other words, what if we couldn’t even see it at all? What if we simply lack the cognitive, perceptual, and developmental frameworks necessary to even view it as something other than nature (~the white noise of the universe).

For example: an early human standing in a field 500,000 years ago would see a plane as a big bird or simply not see it all....

What does this mean?

This means that although we can look back at less intelligent life, our ability to look forward to view more intelligent life is very limited even with advanced tools of observation/analysis and creative insight.

In many ways, this is similar to the way a two dimensional being perceives a three dimensional being in two dimensional space

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: tonycodes

I think that alliances or accommodation were made with "aliens".

They get to kidnap a few hoomans and live underground or "shape shift"

In return Governments were given alien tech.




www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538127304&sr=8-1&keywords=larry+holcombe

by Larry Holcombe
details the secret history of UFOs and the corresponding presidential administration. Starting in 1941 with the Roosevelt administration, author Larry Holcombe examines the startling discoveries facing a president preoccupied by WWII, the explosion of UFO sightings during the Truman years, first contact during the Eisenhower administration, and the possibility of a UFO connection to the Kennedy assassination.

In 1975, the Nixon administration came very close to admitting that UFOs exist by funding a documentary by Robert Emenegger. Almost 40 years later, this book will examine Emenegger's findings.

Why , while reading this , did I hear the theme song from "The Twilight Zone" playing ?

a reply to: tonycodes

H2O

www.space.com...

Physical characteristics

The solid nucleus or core of a comet consists mostly of ice and dust coated with dark organic material, according to NASA, with the ice composed mainly of frozen water but perhaps other frozen substances as well, such as ammonia, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane. The nucleus may have a small rocky core.

a reply to: Gothmog

Nothing wrong with The Twilight Zone.

Many minds started off with "what if".

Then after passing exams they got dumbed down.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Your post right above Gothmog is something that I have never considered. It makes perfect sense but I see one problem with it.
When looking for E.T. We are looking for more advanced technology and we have theorized about such tech in books, movies and shows. So it would stand to reason that we would be able to notice these beings and recognize the much more advanced technology that is being used.
If we can even detect it that is.

I agree with your premis in that there has to be life out there, but it could be anything not just carbon based life.
H2O can be both too hot and too cold for life.

a reply to: tonycodes

a reply to: tonycodes

yeah...you got a couple hrs to edit any post or thread title...after that...it stays as is....and it will tell you you've passed the time to edit

originally posted by: tonycodes

So here are some facts. The Powers That Be all agree that comets are DIRTY SNOWBALLS. And they agree that comets are leftovers from OTHER PLANETS that HAD WATER.

Close, but not exactly.

Comets are thought to be some of the leftover stuff that was part of the cloud of gas and dust that eventually formed our solar system -- but it's some of the stuff that did not form into a planet (i.e., it is not part of a past planet that had water)

The water on a comet comes from the bonding of hydrogen atoms (which was made shortly after the big bang) and oxygen atoms (which was made later inside stars). The energy required for the oxygen to bind to the hydrogen atoms comes from the collisions of the objects carrying the hydrogen and oxygen.


Water (in some form -- ice, liquid, vapor) can be found almost everywhere in the solar system: Craters on Mercury and our Moon, ice on Mars, vapor in the clouds of Venus and Jupiter, in oceans beneath the surfaces of Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Ceres, and probably even Pluto.

Water vapor has been detected in large amounts in intersteller nebula -- maybe nebula that are similar to the nebula from which our solar system (along with pour water) formed.


EDIT TO ADD:
And while I do agree that there is almost certainly other life in the universe, there is not yet any real proof of that life. Even without proof, I think it does still exist, but science cannot state that it does exist until proof is found.

It's similar to exoplantes: Science knew it was a virtual certainty that other planets outside our solar syetem existed (I mean, why not?), but they did not have proof of those planets until the first was found in 1995.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Gothmog

Nothing wrong with The Twilight Zone.

Many minds started off with "what if".

Then after passing exams they got dumbed down.

Did I say there was?

a reply to: tonycodes

If you only have one point of evidence, you have proof of nothing.

I am not saying that time will not prove your assertion that there is life in the universe other than ours to be correct, far from it, I agree with that conclusion. But your saying that any one data point, other than the actual discovery of a life form, is one hundred percent proof is one hundred percent, weapons grade nonsense.

And, as for your determinations about H2O...

It is LIQUID water which is considered (in my view erroneously) the benchmark for the potential a body has to play host to life, not the presence of H2O in general. There are plenty of bodies which have water ice as part of their structure. But liquid water is necessary as a medium for the sorts of life that NASA and other space agencies are looking to find, because without that, life as we know it is thought to be impossible. Now, I am of the opinion that we should be sending manned missions to every solid body that we can physically land a craft on with a relative degree of safety, and having those pioneering people sift every interesting pile of dirt, look under every rock, explore every cave, crack, crevice and gap, and do what only human beings have ever been able to do in our experience, and that is deeply and passionately explore those places, to identify as many potential places where life may form as possible. I do not think that making assumptions based on Earths biological history stands up to logical scrutiny, as we are still discovering life forms here on this planet which defy our expectations, so why we rely on those expectations to inform us about other worlds and their potential for life, is well beyond me.

But...

The point still stands, that finding H20 in other formats than liquid, does not constitute one hundred percent proof of anything, other than the presence of H2O, and it certainly does not prove or even pass muster as a reasonable assumption, that the presence of H2O in ANY format automatically means life. Again, liquid water would be a somewhat different story, but only by a little bit.

The short version, for the dwellers of the peanut gallery;

You have no proof, until you have a life form to show me.

a reply to: tonycodes

You don't need anything from space to prove that life does and can exist in the universe. Get up right now, walk to your nearest mirror or reflective object and take a look at the thing looking back at you, there is your proof that life can exist out there and most likely does. I've had this debate a few times and will say it again, WE, Humanity is evidence enough that alien life can exist in the universe and does. The simple fact that in a cosmos as big as ours, so big that we cannot even imagine its size, there is life on a small green blue orb and people still question whether there can be or is life in the universe confuses me greatly.

To the OP. While I do feel that there is likely at least single cell organisms living in the ice, water, rock of the multiple planets in our solar system and therefore likely other plants in the Universe. I do not think the google search screen cap you've presented is "fool proof fact". I'm not a scientist but I do depend on basic human experience and reason to deduct my beliefs on life outside of Earth. Of course there is a possibility that life exists beyond earth, but I'd just like to reinforce that there is no reliable evidence that concludes there is any kind of multi-cellular or intelligent life outside of planet Earth.

I think a lot of people on ATS want there to be "something out there" so bad with such passion that it taints the math in the equation. I'd say that it is logical to assume there is life, even intelligent life beyond Earth simply because of the amount of Galaxy's and planets that there are, nearly an infinite amount. However it is also important to realize just how special Earth is to create the abundance of life that it is inhabited with. Just the right distance from the sun, just the right axis, just the right gravitational pull from the moon, just the right circumstances that keep life possible here. Not too hot, not too cold, gravity allows us and our ocean's to exist peacefully (more often than not). The exact math behind why Earth is inhabitable would be nearly impossible to find in another planet. The circumstances that provide an inhabitable planet for life are not going to last forever, they are but a simple blip on the timeline of Earth.