glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
you have to make that assumption because if it happened here then with the right conditions it will happen somewhere else on one of the many billions of planets similar to ours
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Alien Abduction meeeting in Brighton
- Thread starter Norman Potting
- Start date
you have to make that assumption because if it happened here then with the right conditions it will happen somewhere else on one of the many billions of planets similar to ours
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Some renowned geologists and astrophysicists would agree with you whilst others would disagree. Having read the about the Rare Earth Hypothesis where it talks about the sheer number of conditions necessary I'm inclined to go along with the theory that we are alone. I'm not dogmatic about it but am slightly bemused by all those people who keep saying that they are certain or almost certain that life exists elsewhere. I really can't see how you can say anything with any certainty about something we know so little about.
Gullflyinghigh
Registered User
- Apr 23, 2012
- 4,279
Amazingly, somewhere between the first posts on this thread to the more recent ones it's somehow managed to turn quite interesting. Hurrah!
I genuinely thought it'd end up just being yet another conspiracy theory hijack (not that I'm against CT threads, just the attitude taken by some of individuals within).
I genuinely thought it'd end up just being yet another conspiracy theory hijack (not that I'm against CT threads, just the attitude taken by some of individuals within).
If by similar, you mean creatures with teeth and limbs etc, then I think that's a fair point, but they'll also be vastly different, as the species on our own planet can be.
Which it does. If we believe there was a big bang, I think it's fair to suggest there was no life that both existed before it, and survived it, to populate our planet.
It depends what you mean by nothing - but it does emerge from the chemical blocks of life.
Holy cow, this thread is going Gold! The Argus: "NSC user in considering alternative view shocker"
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
No, you don't have to make that assumption at all. Given the size of the universe and the number of parameters that something of that size and that mass and that structure throws up, there may well be too many conditions necessary for life to exist elsewhere.
Let me put it another way - the odds of life existing elsewhere on another planet may be significantly higher than the number of available planets that exist in the universe.
For example - the chances of winning the lottery are 1 in 14 million. If you have a million chances to pick the winning number you will probably not win but you might just get lucky. The number of planets in the universe is huge, no doubt but it is finite. The odds of getting the right conditions necessary for life to exist is far greater than that - probably nearing infinity. The chances of life existing at all are extremely small as to be negligible. The chances of it happening twice? Hmm....
It's an extremely simplified explanation for a hypothesis that I don't entirely understand and my simplified version has lots of holes but it's about the best way I can explain it.
EDIT - I don't know if the above is true but all those who say there are billions of planets therefore it must be certain that it is being replicated elsewhere don't seem to consider the possibility that maybe the chances of it happening might be 1 in trillions. You simply can't be certain.
Last edited:
smeariestbat
New member
- May 5, 2012
- 1,731
OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE!!!!!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/shoc...utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&s=mobile
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/shoc...utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&s=mobile
Tubby-McFat-Fuc
Well-known member
Thing against that though, is in out solar system we have one star, the sun. In our galaxy our star is one of hundreds of billions of stars. Our galaxy is one of hundred of billions of galaxies.
For life to exist its proven on earth, you need water. In places on this planet where water hasn't fallen for millions of years, there is no life, not even baterica. So its safe to say, if you have water, and by that I mean surface liquid water for millions of years, then life can possibility/will start as it did here.
So, back to our solar system, and our one star. For a planet to have liquid water, its needs to be within a certain temperate range, the habitable zone, otherwise if turns to gas or solid. So far we know of THREE planets in our solar system that have or have had liquid water. One of the moons of Jupiter, Earth, and Mars. Mars lost its water as the planet was too small to hold onto its atmosphere. Whether life ever existed there millions of years ago, I guess we will find out in the next few years or so. Then there's the moon of Jupiter which has water and although it would be to small to holds its atmosphere on its own out in the solar system, does so because of Jupiter.
So there are three planets around one star, that had/have water in liquid, and for all know there may be more.
Given there are hundreds of billions stars in a galaxy, and a hundreds of billions of galaxies, we proven our star had three planets with water, I think its a safe bet that there are billions of other habitable planets out there, and a lot with various forms and stages of life. I personally have no doubt of that. What I do strongly doubt, is any of this life will ever leave their solar systems, and land on another habitable world, and stick spikes up peoples bums.
Psychobilly freakout
HellBilly
..........
Attachments
Tubby-McFat-Fuc
Well-known member
So where do you think life came from?
I think that's a fairly straightforward explanation of your view. There is a finite number of planets in our universe. If you believe the odds of life being created on a planet are longer than the number of planets, then you'll think there's little chance of there being life elsewhere. Personally, I would think the odds of life starting on a suitable planet is much shorter than the number of suitable planets there are, so I think the chance of there being life elsewhere is extremely high.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,312
i reckon there's an obvious problem with that hypothesis, in that half the conditions are themselves based on unproven hypothesis (example need a moon, need tectonics, need jovian planet - why?). its quite possible that on metallic planets in the habitable zone life is ubiquitous.
Norman Potting
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #152
Delighted to have been of service, please to see one of my threads getting to four pages.
........really should get out more.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
What do you mean?
The Truth
Banned
Graham Hancock published a book on this subject - Meetings with the ancient teachers of mankind. He presents what is known as the greatest riddle of archaeology, he try's to explore why over all periods of history, in nearly all cultures across the world, we humans have reported experiences of such strikingly similar nature. These experiences usually only deviate from the same events in a way of cultural or periodic representation. Some examples are UFO abduction accounts, Shaman experiences, Ancient mythology, Irish folk law, Psychedelic drug experience's even tribal dancing. I would say if you are interested in this discussion and are not happy with a video, please read the book.
Tubby-McFat-Fuc
Well-known member
So, if any of the missions to mars come up with evidence of baterical life, or a future probes sent to Europa proves basic or complex life forms exist or existed, that would be 3 in our solar system. I dont see how you can say the chances of life existing at all are extremely small as to be negligible. Given its all round us on earth, in many different forms, in many different environments, at many different temperates at many different atmospheric pressures, I'd say the chances of life existing is so huge, that is must be more chance of life forms on planets surrounding every star then none at all!
Gullflyinghigh
Registered User
- Apr 23, 2012
- 4,279
Sadly, it seems like it could be heading back in the other direction again...
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
I think this is where I bow out of the conversation. We're all trying to discuss something as if we have a clue as to what's going on but we're only laymen. You're taking on experts in their field who devised this theory - true, your counter-argument is backed by equally renowned scientists but are you really qualified to say with certainty that life must exist elsewhere? I don't think you and others here have got any right to make such a bold claim when we know so little about how the Earth came about in the first place.
I've enjoyed the debate though.
symyjym
Banned
I would find it harder to believe that there wasn't intelligent life out there, and if we were the only intelligent civilisation it’s even more of a miracle just being here on NSC.I mean what are the chances of that?
