Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One thing that annoys me when I read articles released by scientists is when they talk about "planets that can support life" outside of Earth... and then talk about having water and oxygen.
Why would a planet need water to support life? Why would it need Oxygen? Based on the ideas of natural selection and evolution, life could come from any type of environment... it would just start from a different point and branch out differently.
I just feel that when a scientists says something like that, it makes them sound a bit narrow minded.
Maybe I'm just over-thinking articles that are written for the general public?
Well, we KNOW that a planet with the right proportions of various gases and water ARE IN FACT CAPABLE of supporting life because we live on such a planet. So it makes sense if you're looking for something you KNOW can, you go with the one example you have that does.
No one is saying other types of atmospheres can't. WE KNOW this one can. So let's start with what we know to try to narrow stuff down in the vast, vast universe.
Right, but if life did form on Earth by mere chance.. then isn't it just as possible for life to appear on another planet in a different form and just as possible to never appear on a planet, even of equal gas proportions to Earth?
Technically, there should be the same probability that life could come up in a planet like Mercury. Right?
Right, but if life did form on Earth by mere chance.. then isn't it just as possible for life to appear on another planet in a different form and just as possible to never appear on a planet, even of equal gas proportions to Earth?
Technically, there should be the same probability that life could come up in a planet like Mercury. Right?
Maybe.
But if you're sifting through insane amounts of data, it helps to have some parameters that you can count on. Then go from there.
One thing that annoys me when I read articles released by scientists is when they talk about "planets that can support life" outside of Earth... and then talk about having water and oxygen.
Why would a planet need water to support life? Why would it need Oxygen? Based on the ideas of natural selection and evolution, life could come from any type of environment... it would just start from a different point and branch out differently.
I just feel that when a scientists says something like that, it makes them sound a bit narrow minded.
Maybe I'm just over-thinking articles that are written for the general public?
Either way, it gets under my skin.
What do you guys think?
While I agree to some point, I also think that the scientists talk is about "planets that can support life as we know it." That makes a huge difference.
There would not be much sense in looking for life based upon silicon that breathes an ammonia-rich atmosphere, as we would not be able to easily coexist with it, or try to take over its world. And as our funds are quite limited for any searches, it is far more fiscally intelligent to limit our search for places we could exist, and life forms that we could either live with or try to conquer.
IMHO, I feel that live stars, and planets with molten interiors, and possibly even larger structures in the Universe could be considered "alive". But I think it's okay to limit our initial searches to those types of "life" that we might be able to intermingle and communicate with.
One knows no such thing does not mean exist not such thing.
Google Scientists discover first multicellular life that doesn't need oxygen
"planets that can support life" does not mean we can live there.
For example, we are not along and can not live along. We are a Symbiotic lifeform.
Many life forms live inside us and outside us.
There exist many unknown, but we do know we need gravity.
google long term zero gravity heath
If "Symbiotic lifeforms" is a normal, then we should not look for "planets that can support life".
There are couple possibilities when 2 group of alien life forms meet.
A wipes B out
B wipes A out
Both wipes each other out
Co-exist peacefully
So we should look for asteroids, dwarf planets, moons, planets(when our tech advance enough) in our solar system.
Why?
We can build generation starships with asteroids, dwarf planets, moons, planets.
They have gravity with no alien life.
We can live underground with our own sun(fission/fusion)
We can import eartrh live forms over each generation starships.
On the way out of our solar system, we can shield our generation starships with layers of ice from outer planets.(water is also our food and energy)
google Warp drive space travel closer to reality?
With electromagnetic (EM) drive, we lose no mass.
With advance laser tech, we have a long range comm and massless weapons in light speed.
How do you detect weapons in light speed?
When each generation starships are passing by any solar systems, we just send out ships to those solar system and build more generation starships. Each generation starships do not even need to slow down.
Some will meet other life forms in the long run when our generation starships in numbers and every where. Some will try to shake hands and we will finally learn the outcome of the contacts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burgler09
One thing that annoys me when I read articles released by scientists is when they talk about "planets that can support life" outside of Earth... and then talk about having water and oxygen.
Why would a planet need water to support life? Why would it need Oxygen? Based on the ideas of natural selection and evolution, life could come from any type of environment... it would just start from a different point and branch out differently.
I just feel that when a scientists says something like that, it makes them sound a bit narrow minded.
Maybe I'm just over-thinking articles that are written for the general public?
Our very own earth once had no oxygen yet it had life - stromatolites. Not only are they the oldest known organisms but they still exist. They initially oxygenated the earth's atmosphere, so oxygen is not a prerequisite for earth-like life on an earth-like exoplanet.
One thing that annoys me when I read articles released by scientists is when they talk about "planets that can support life" outside of Earth... and then talk about having water and oxygen.
Why would a planet need water to support life? Why would it need Oxygen? Based on the ideas of natural selection and evolution, life could come from any type of environment... it would just start from a different point and branch out differently.
It doesn't necessarily have to use oxygen, but water plays a role that very few other substances can. Life almost certainly needs some sort of liquid to dissolve and deliver both inorganic minerals and organic compounds to a lifeform, and to flush other organic compounds from the body. Water is one of the few substances known to have that capability - it's an excellent solvent, and is widely found in significant quantities throughout the universe. The likelihood that other life forms depend upon water is quite high, simply because there are few (if any) commonly found liquids that can do what it does.
One thing that annoys me when I read articles released by scientists is when they talk about "planets that can support life" outside of Earth... and then talk about having water and oxygen.
Why would a planet need water to support life? Why would it need Oxygen? Based on the ideas of natural selection and evolution, life could come from any type of environment... it would just start from a different point and branch out differently.
I just feel that when a scientists says something like that, it makes them sound a bit narrow minded.
Maybe I'm just over-thinking articles that are written for the general public?
Either way, it gets under my skin.
What do you guys think?
Water is the best solvent. Most scientists think that life requires water to get going.
As for oxygen, most life does not require it, but it is a good signature of life because it is so unstable. If you detect and environment that has a lot of oxygen, then you immediately have to ask why. There are other reasons, but one of the very few answers is that something is breathing it out.
Some scientists postulate that there might indeed be different pathways to life, but life coming from "any environment" is the stuff of science fiction only. You need the solvent, and you need a base element that allows for various other elements to be grafted...carbon being the best one because of its instability. Some astrobiologists have postulated that others might do, such as silicon, but there is no evidence, and there are also scientists that reject the notion entirely.
Until proven otherwise, the water-carbon combo is the magic combo.
Water is unique in that it expands and floats when cold. Imagine life, for a minute, if ice sunk. Just one angle to consider.
I don't think our knowledge of the universe is far beyond infantile at the moment. At this moment....we believe that water and oxygen are necessary for life as we know it.
Or...maybe what they are really striving for is a planet that can support our life?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
