Life found on Mars?!
Discussion
Vipers said:
.
If anybody proves beyond reasonable doubt in my lifetime that there is, I will happily put all my estate in their name.Our sun supports life, there are over two million stars we know of so far, and you think we are the only planet with life on? Interesting.
http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=HIPPARCO...
Not that I think it will be proven in our lifetime, so your bet is safe me thinks. In fact we may never ever find out.
The flaw in that theory being that,like the lottery,the odds of winning don't improve because there are more lottery games ( solar systems ) because each solar system is a different seperate solar system ( game ) in its own right.In which the odds against a planet being the right goldilocks distance from the host star at least remain the same.Thankyou4calling said:
jmorgan said:
Don't think there are many serious people saying there is no other life out there. The chances of meeting them is another thing.
I'm a serious person and i'm saying there is no other life out there.If anybody proves beyond reasonable doubt in my lifetime that there is, I will happily put all my estate in their name.
http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=HIPPARCO...
Not that I think it will be proven in our lifetime, so your bet is safe me thinks. In fact we may never ever find out.
In this case those odds going along the lines of the total distance of the universe in miles v the goldilocks distance window of a planet from a star.
It seems obvious that increasing the number of solar systems ( lottery games ) won't make any difference to that equation in the case of each seperate solar system ( lottery game ) IE the odds against remain the same in the case of each seperate solar system ( game ).
Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 18th December 23:54
I'm not quite sure probability works like that?
Each lottery game has a winner, usually.
If you increase the number of players, the likelihood of more winners goes up.
Also that whole goldilocks zone stuff is only relevant for carbon based life that can use/s all three states of water to survive. There could be immeasurable other ways life could exist that we don't even know exist to check for.
Never mind other sources of heat that let water exist in all three states not within a certain range from the sun. Admittedly they may not last as long as a star but they could provide heat long enough for life to develop.
If we are alone in this universe then in my view it'd point to something a bit weird about our understanding of it. Like is it even real? Or are we just figments of our imaginations inside some other non-real system (like a computer simulation)
Each lottery game has a winner, usually.
If you increase the number of players, the likelihood of more winners goes up.
Also that whole goldilocks zone stuff is only relevant for carbon based life that can use/s all three states of water to survive. There could be immeasurable other ways life could exist that we don't even know exist to check for.
Never mind other sources of heat that let water exist in all three states not within a certain range from the sun. Admittedly they may not last as long as a star but they could provide heat long enough for life to develop.
If we are alone in this universe then in my view it'd point to something a bit weird about our understanding of it. Like is it even real? Or are we just figments of our imaginations inside some other non-real system (like a computer simulation)
Mr Whippy said:
I'm not quite sure probability works like that?
Each lottery game has a winner, usually.
If you increase the number of players, the likelihood of more winners goes up.
Also that whole goldilocks zone stuff is only relevant for carbon based life that can use/s all three states of water to survive. There could be immeasurable other ways life could exist that we don't even know exist to check for.
Never mind other sources of heat that let water exist in all three states not within a certain range from the sun. Admittedly they may not last as long as a star but they could provide heat long enough for life to develop.
If we are alone in this universe then in my view it'd point to something a bit weird about our understanding of it.
If you increase the stake by buying more tickets ( planets ) put on one game ( star ) then the odds of winning increase.If you buy the same amount of tickets ( planets )put equally on the national lottery and the euro millions ( two seperate stars ) then the odds against winning remain the same for both.IE the theory only works in the case of buying enough tickets ( planets ) in fewer games ( solar systems/stars ).Each lottery game has a winner, usually.
If you increase the number of players, the likelihood of more winners goes up.
Also that whole goldilocks zone stuff is only relevant for carbon based life that can use/s all three states of water to survive. There could be immeasurable other ways life could exist that we don't even know exist to check for.
Never mind other sources of heat that let water exist in all three states not within a certain range from the sun. Admittedly they may not last as long as a star but they could provide heat long enough for life to develop.
If we are alone in this universe then in my view it'd point to something a bit weird about our understanding of it.
Which then leaves the question of it obviously being a case of maths in the amount of tickets or players to beat the odds to win a game in which the odds against are massive but still finite.As opposed to something else when the odds against are infinite regardless of how many finite tickets you buy.I'd go along with the idea of God in whatever form being just as likely,if not more,to be the creator of Earth as/than science.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWdWExNBUBI
www.icr.org/article/7724/
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 19th December 01:07
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 19th December 01:29
Thankyou4calling said:
I'm a serious person and i'm saying there is no other life out there.
If anybody proves beyond reasonable doubt in my lifetime that there is, I will happily put all my estate in their name.
Very, very foolish words, man. If anybody proves beyond reasonable doubt in my lifetime that there is, I will happily put all my estate in their name.
If this methane is proven to have come from Martian bacteria, etc you will be destitute.
XJ Flyer said:
XJ Flyer said:
Mr Whippy said:
I'm not quite sure probability works like that?
Each lottery game has a winner, usually.
If you increase the number of players, the likelihood of more winners goes up.
Also that whole goldilocks zone stuff is only relevant for carbon based life that can use/s all three states of water to survive. There could be immeasurable other ways life could exist that we don't even know exist to check for.
Never mind other sources of heat that let water exist in all three states not within a certain range from the sun. Admittedly they may not last as long as a star but they could provide heat long enough for life to develop.
If we are alone in this universe then in my view it'd point to something a bit weird about our understanding of it.
If you increase the stake by buying more tickets ( planets ) put on one game ( star ) then the odds of winning increase.If you buy the same amount of tickets ( planets )put equally on the national lottery and the euro millions ( two seperate stars ) then the odds against winning remain the same for both.IE the theory only works in the case of buying enough tickets ( planets ) in fewer games ( solar systems/stars ).Each lottery game has a winner, usually.
If you increase the number of players, the likelihood of more winners goes up.
Also that whole goldilocks zone stuff is only relevant for carbon based life that can use/s all three states of water to survive. There could be immeasurable other ways life could exist that we don't even know exist to check for.
Never mind other sources of heat that let water exist in all three states not within a certain range from the sun. Admittedly they may not last as long as a star but they could provide heat long enough for life to develop.
If we are alone in this universe then in my view it'd point to something a bit weird about our understanding of it.
Which then leaves the question of it obviously being a case of maths in the amount of tickets or players to beat the odds to win a game in which the odds against are massive but still finite.As opposed to something else when the odds against are infinite regardless of how many finite tickets you buy.I'd go along with the idea of God in whatever form being just as likely,if not more,to be the creator of Earth as/than science.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWdWExNBUBI
www.icr.org/article/7724/
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 19th December 01:07
I get what he means, and I often look out on the world and wonder in a deep spiritual way.
But on the other hand the idea that it IS all by chance is equally beautiful and awe inspiring.
Just because it seems big and empty doesn't mean it IS empty though, and I mean that in both a physical and spiritual way too.
Whatever the answers really are they'd be awe inspiring to know whatever they are... mainly because they just raise more questions
Mr Whippy said:
If we are alone in this universe then in my view it'd point to something a bit weird about our understanding of it. Like is it even real? Or are we just figments of our imaginations inside some other non-real system (like a computer simulation)
I expect it is a probability but working out them odds would be fun with only one real bit of information.
KareemK said:
Thankyou4calling said:
I'm a serious person and i'm saying there is no other life out there.
Thats almost a statistical impossibility.Now, where's my new house?
Any idea of the value to put on the probability of life evolving on a planet. If you can't answer this question then your answer above has nothing to do with statistics, and a lot to do with faith.
Einion Yrth said:
julian64 said:
Any idea of the value to put on the probability of life evolving on a planet.
We know it to be non-zero, does that help?I'll go with the idea of just one and probably,like the universe,that was more than likely to have been the result of a miracle of creation and a 'creator' not scientific luck.
There will be life out there, you must remember that we are looking at distant star systems billions of years ago due to the time it takes the light to get here. If you were on a planet in a distant galaxy looking at the Sol system you would not detect life here either. The distances are beyond comprehension, the number of galaxies, star systems and planets is uncomputable.
Without a faster than light method of travelling these vast distances we will not find anything like us and they will not find us. But intelligent life can and will exist out there.
Without a faster than light method of travelling these vast distances we will not find anything like us and they will not find us. But intelligent life can and will exist out there.
XJ Flyer said:
Going by the equation of a planet that has to be just the right distance,from the right type of star,that isn't going to fry life or deep freeze it just to start with.Let alone all the other issues of the right type atmosphere and magnetic shielding to stop the star's emissions blowing its atmosphere away.
I'll go with the idea of just one and probably,like the universe,that was more than likely to have been the result of a miracle of creation and a 'creator' not scientific luck.
Seriously?I'll go with the idea of just one and probably,like the universe,that was more than likely to have been the result of a miracle of creation and a 'creator' not scientific luck.
XJ Flyer said:
Going by the equation of a planet that has to be just the right distance,from the right type of star,that isn't going to fry life or deep freeze it just to start with.Let alone all the other issues of the right type atmosphere and magnetic shielding to stop the star's emissions blowing its atmosphere away.
They've already found a few planets in these "zones" - and they've only just started looking.It is probable that a planet just slightly smaller than the earth should be enough for it to have a molten iron core and a magnetic field.
It turns out that "the right type of star" is actually most stars.
XJ Flyer said:
Going by the equation of a planet that has to be just the right distance,from the right type of star,that isn't going to fry life or deep freeze it just to start with.Let alone all the other issues of the right type atmosphere and magnetic shielding to stop the star's emissions blowing its atmosphere away.
It only has to be roughly the right distance and several such planets have already been discovered even in the part of our galaxy that we have looked for planets in. Which is in turn a tiny section of the tiny part which is close enough for us to look at.Habitable planets not a problem.
Primitive life a distinct possibility given the scale of the universe.
Complex life much less likely.
Complex life getting out of the oceans far less likely still. Relies on having sufficient dry land and possibly on a huge moon to generate tides.
Complex life with the technology and inclination to take an interest in space and other life, quite possibly zero.
In fact I'd say primitive life elsewhere is a distinct possibility even in our galaxy, before you've multiplied by 100,000,000 to cover the remainder of the universe.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff