Do You Believe in Higher Lifeforms in the Universe?

[Stardust]

First, a quote from Chimmy Ray:

Its speed is just impossible to reach by anything but light.

This is possibly, and probably, not true.  Just because our instruments can only detect things traveling at the speed of light or slower doesn't mean they don't exist.  You must keep in mind that we are limited by our instruments and observations.

Now, onto the main issue: life on other planets (where the thread should be).  If our planet was created, there is a chance that another planet like ours could be created.  This is assuming our environment is the only plausible source of life.  If something happens once, there is always a chance that it can happen again.  Because we don't know the limits of the universe, we can't really say what the chances are with a formula.

Assuming we are bound by the laws we know about now, it would take an incredibly long time for anything to reach our planet from another.  The nearest star is 4.2 light years away.  This means that it takes four years, traveling at the speed of light, to travel from there to here.  Assuming the nearest life is in another galaxy, it would likely take thousands or millions of years to reach us.  By then, the life would probably be dead, but let's say it wasn't.  It would reach us millions of years after they reached the point where they could launch the ship or whatever.  Although our star is fairly new, it's unlikely that they would reach us, even if they are from one of the oldest stars (although we don't really know the age of the universe, so I can't say this for sure).

Now, I've so far been using only information we know about.  There is a very good chance that there are further waves that travel through space.  We can't detect them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  The magnetic properties of Earth may be preventing the waves from reaching us, or maybe our instruments simply can't handle it because it's traveling to fast or in a different frequency than we have access to.  Beings may be communicating with each other many times faster than the speed of light.

Also, it may be possible that other beings have abilities we don't have, like magic.  We can't rule out conditions simply because we can't see/observe them.  This applies to just about everything, which is why this is such an uncertain topic.  It may be possible that certain forces bend or completely ignore our physics or chemistry or biology, which means that the possibilities are endless.  We wouldn't be debating this, nor would there be so many hypotheses, if we had a solid knowledge of the universe.  This is also why there are so many religions which attempt to explain what we don't know from science.  We now see the Greek gods and goddesses as silly because we now know exactly what causes some of the things they attempted to explain (like echoes).  Alternatively, we may be looking back on our ideas as silly when we discover something new.  Maybe there are no gods/goddesses, or maybe there are many.  We look at religion as a way to fill in the gaps because we can't live without having an explanation for something, and this is why we sometimes depend on it.

 

[mawk]

This is possibly, and probably, not true.  Just because our instruments can only detect things traveling at the speed of light or slower doesn't mean they don't exist.  You must keep in mind that we are limited by our instruments and observations.

I was thinking of adding a disclaimer to that statement ("at least, not by us") but I figure it made me sound a little too Space Freak. Generally, though, as you near the speed of light your mass increases until you collapse inward into a black hole. Do you have an easy solution for that? As I see it, the only way to travel the speed of light without killing half the solar system is to ride a ship pulled by enchanted swans.

I sort of wish Shiroun would reply, since I really want to know what the hell he was talking about.

Also, it may be possible that other beings have abilities we don't have, like magic.

*sigh*

Why the do you wanna turn every discussion into a Guardianism correspondence course!?

This isn't about magic. Even if it were, I could say this: lack of information makes it seem like anything's possible, but please try to remain within the boundaries of reason. This is for serious debate, not crazy "what if" scenarios (just "what if" scenarios which are backed up with some good reasoning,) which is why I got so mad at Shiroun in the first place.

 

[Stardust]

I did not mention Guardianism, nor was I referring to it in any way.  Please don't instantly think of Guardianism when I say something.  I was merely stating that we don't really know what's possible because we're restricted to this one planet and one environment.  If we began exploring other planets in detail, I'm sure we would find some interesting things.  Also, I must inform you that this entire thread is a "what if" scenario.  We don't know for certain if aliens exist, so we're pondering ways in which they could exist.

As for the solution to collapsing, I do have an idea.  It's a far-fetched idea, but I think we will eventually be able to create anti-gravity.  First, though, we'll need to be able to control gravity.  Scientists are working on a concept called the grand unification, which is an attempt to combine all four forces into one, and they have so far been able to control three of them.  Gravity, however, is unique, and so far we have no way of controlling it.  This is, I believe, because gravity doesn't have an emitter, while most other forces do, so we would have to construct an emitter to be able to control it.  Of course, this is a very hypothesized concept and we will probably not obtain gravity control in our lifetime, but it's something to think about and we are working on the idea.  If we didn't try to do the impossible then we wouldn't have many of the things we have today, like the internet.

 

[mawk]

Also, I must inform you that this entire thread is a "what if" scenario.  We don't know for certain if aliens exist, so we're pondering ways in which they could exist.

I have acknowledged this every single time I mentioned crazy "what if" scenarios. I go on to explain that "what if" scenarios are alright so long as they're backed up with a decent explanation -- not "gee we don't know for sure magic is totally fake it must be true, right, guys!?"

You say "magic" and you're automatically tying the conversation in with Guardianism's pillars. At least, that's my perception of the situation. When a preacher whose religion (I'm too lazy to type the appropriate term right now (but not too lazy to type this lengthy disclaimer, somehow) is centered around magic bring up magic in a different conversation, the assumption is that he is referring to magic as it is presented in his religion.

To control gravity, first we need to discover what the hell it is that makes things attract each other based on their masses. "Gravitons" are one theory on the matter, but they remain just a theory -- scientists are rummaging though reality's hope chest in search of little graviton mothballs, but right now it's just as likely that something else is keeping the moths out of her fine cottons.

Plausible? Maybe. Probable? Not even close. Not within your lifetime? On the nosey!

As for "anti-gravity," I don't think it's possible for an object to have a negative mass.

Magnetism can be created with an electric field, and the nuclear forces can be harnessed by splittin' dem atoms. In gravity's case, the only plausible way to create or harness gravity at present would be to carry around an object of incredible mass. Using gravity independently of mass certainly seems like a tall order.

Anyway, may I remind you that this thread is about life on other planets? If two people with high school educations want to make banter about advanced physics principles, they should probably take it outside of the Historian's Club.

No matter what else anyone says, I think it's safe to assume that other planets will still follow the same fundamental laws of nature that we do, at least. The laws of physics are called "universal" for a reason. :x

 

[Stardust]

You say "magic" and you're automatically tying the conversation in with Guardianism's pillars. At least, that's my perception of the situation. When a preacher whose religion (I'm too lazy to type the appropriate term right now (but not too lazy to type this lengthy disclaimer, somehow) is centered around magic bring up magic in a different conversation, the assumption is that he is referring to magic as it is presented in his religion.

Just because magic is a part of Guardianism does not mean I can't discuss it in other scenarios.  I'm not so obsessed with it that it is my only view.  I am capable of discussing things from another viewpoint and I was referring to magic in general terms, not in terms of what I have described as magic.  Also, Guardianism isn't centered around magic.  In fact, there isn't even a section on magic yet.  It's one of the minor aspects of Guardianism and its section will be mostly me hypothesizing about how to do certain things.  Please, let's leave Guardianism out of this discussion from now on.

No matter what else anyone says, I think it's safe to assume that other planets will still follow the same fundamental laws of nature that we do, at least. The laws of physics are called "universal" for a reason. :x

How would we declare our laws "universal" when we don't even know the limits of the universe?  It's like saying "because this crayon is the only one I have, all crayons must draw in this color."  Ultimately, I think we're a little self-centered as a race.  This is partially proven by the geocentric model, which is where we believed the Earth was the center of the universe until Kepler came along and partially disproved it.

As for life on other planets, it is almost impossible for it to not exist.  How can we be the only beings in the universe, considering how large it is?  Unless the universe loops around like some suggest, there are billions upon billions of stars with, probably, at least four planets per star, and it seems unlikely that our star is the only one capable of creating life.  We're special on Earth, but not in the universe.

 

[mawk]

How would we declare our laws "universal" when we don't even know the limits of the universe?  It's like saying "because this crayon is the only one I have, all crayons must draw in this color."  Ultimately, I think we're a little self-centered as a race.  This is partially proven by the geocentric model, which is where we believed the Earth was the center of the universe until Kepler came along and partially disproved it.

Yes, how can we be sure that everything is attracted to objects according to mass? For all we know, it could just be the Earth that's doing it.

This is a crazy what-if scenario, child. Your "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument won't hold water with me because here, you gotta have more punch to your what-if scenarios than just "gee no one's disproven this anything's possible!"

 

[___]

You brought up a really good point about the possibility that there are things that travel faster than light that we just don't have the instruments to detect, magic-man.  I can't say with confidence that it's possible, but I can saw with confidence that we have now way of knowing because we have no means of testing the theory, therefore it's philosophy.

On physics working differently in different parts of the universe:  not possible, according to our understanding of the universe.  The universe we exist in is built on an extremely delicate balance; a tiny change in the functioning of physics in one little corner of the universe could result in the whole thing unraveling rapidly.  Nothing about the way the universe functions can ever be known in the sense of "complete and ultimate objective fact" but when we have a model that accurately predicts every behavior ever observed, and we have a very thorough set of observations, we grow increasingly more and more confident that the model is correct.  Outside the quantum realm our mathematical models do completely and thoroughly predict and explain every behavior of every object from the atomic level on up to the macro universe, and those models rely on certain constants in physics that by definition insist everything works the same everywhere given the same set of conditions.

For a more deep discussion on why other life in the universe based on substantially different chemical processes is unlikely or completely impossible, READ THE REST OF THE FUCKING THREAD.  Grrrrr!  I hate it when people dredge up a point already discussed exhaustively because they can't be bothered to scan prior conversation first : /

 

[Stardust]

Chimmy Ray
I only used the phrase for people who won't believe something unless they're shown it.  It bothers me when someone thinks they know everything just because it's all we have available to us.  If I'm using it here, it's merely to point out possibilities, but I don't think I'm applying in the manner you're talking about.

Nphyx
I see what you're saying with physics.  I guess it would be hard for something to change without forcing everything else to change, too.  I was probably wrong in thinking that our laws of physics can be changed.  I guess I'm just being hopeful.  I live to keep learning, and it seems kind of dull to say "this is absolute" because there's no more room for learning.  I like to question things, which is probably why most people don't like me.

And I did read all the posts prior to posting myself, and I didn't really see a conclusion on whether or not different chemical processes are possible.  Maybe I misread something, or maybe after reading for a half hour the words just kind of flowed through me.  I'm sorry if I'm bringing up old points when they've been concluded.

 

[mawk]

In many cases, it's simpler to assume things are the way they are until you can prove they're not. That way you don't get your hopes up thinking the next door you open is gonna lead to the desert.[/ramble]

What phrase are you talking about? "Universal?" No... It's...

Oh, right. That. I think I understand that phrase just fine, thanks, as well as the way you tend to use it as a debate tool. :x

How did this puppy get derailed so bad!? Let's talk more about aliens, dudes!

 

[So fist]

Some thoughts.

Faster than light screws up Relativity.  It destroys causality according to the numbers put forth by Einstein.  He didn't like that very much.  It means an object would need more than infinite energy by the numbers.  Light has been made to travel a smidge faster in vacuums but that really just an adjustment on the common speed limit. 

Time is relative to the observer and the speed that observer travels.  The time dilation experienced in black holes and traveling at the speed of light is caused by the same phenomenon.  Gravity.  As an object approaches the speed of light it gains mass until it is infinitely massive.  That's part of the reason you can't really get a normal sized object up to that speed.  The mass gets in the way of further acceleration at some point.  The mass creates time dilation due to its extremely high gravity.  So shiroun it is not a contradiction the phenomenon occurs for the exact same reasons.  Gravity.

Also the mathematics of the matter are strongly against our favor of being alone or of the only sentience around.  Our galaxy by itself contains billions of stars each one with its own following of habitable planets.  Each one with a zone of habitable distance for the possibility of life as we understand it.  So just in our one galaxy the odds are stacked against us.  You factor in the rest of the universe its no contest.  We are not alone but I don't think we've ever been visited or any shit like that.

 

[Stardust]

Sorry to semi-necropost, but I just spotted something related to this topic and I think it deserves discussion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080616/sc_nm/space_planets_dc

Spoiler: Article

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - European researchers said on Monday they discovered a batch of three "super-Earths" orbiting a nearby star, and two other solar systems with small planets as well.

They said their findings, presented at a conference in France, suggest that Earth-like planets may be very common.

"Does every single star harbor planets and, if yes, how many?" asked Michel Mayor of Switzerland's Geneva Observatory. "We may not yet know the answer but we are making huge progress towards it," Mayor said in a statement.

The trio of planets orbit a star slightly less massive than our Sun, 42 light-years away towards the southern Doradus and Pictor constellations. A light-year is the distance light can travel in one year at a speed of 186,000 miles a second, or about 6 trillion miles.

The planets are bigger than Earth -- one is 4.2 times the mass, one is 6.7 times and the third is 9.4 times.

They orbit their star at extremely rapid speeds -- one whizzing around in just four days, compared with Earth's 365 days, one taking 10 days and the slowest taking 20 days.

Mayor and colleagues used the High Accuracy Radial velocity Planet Searcher or HARPS, a telescope at La Silla observatory in Chile, to find the planets.

More than 270 so-called exoplanets have been found. Most are giants, resembling Jupiter or Saturn. Smaller planets closer to the size of Earth are far more difficult to spot.

None can be imaged directly at such distances but can be spotted indirectly using radio waves or, in the case of HARPS, spectrographic measurements. As a planet orbits, it makes the star wobble very slightly and this can be measured.

"With the advent of much more precise instruments such as the HARPS spectrograph ... we can now discover smaller planets, with masses between 2 and 10 times the Earth's mass," said Stephane Udry, who also worked on the study.

The team also said they found a planet 7.5 times the mass of Earth orbiting the star HD 181433 in 9.5 days. This star also has a Jupiter-like planet that orbits every three years.

Another solar system has a planet 22 times the mass of Earth, orbiting every four days, and a Saturn-like planet with a 3-year period.

"Clearly these planets are only the tip of the iceberg," said Mayor.

"The analysis of all the stars studied with HARPS shows that about one third of all solar-like stars have either super-Earth or Neptune-like planets with orbital periods shorter than 50 days."

 

[Petros]

Higher life forms? No. There's no way humans can be topped. NO WAY.

Because what, Humans are so perfect? We're physically one of the weakest races on the planet, mentally we may be the strongest on the planet but we contract more diseases than any other animal, our society is defunct when taken in comparison with the ones in the animal kingdom. Give me one good reason why there's no reason why Humans can be topped.

 

[mawk]

Uh, Petros, I don't think he was being quite serious. :P

 

[Xaixis]

This question has always been on my head. And I have come to one conclusion. Yes.

The universe is too big for our minds to handle. It's absolutely HUGE! No scratch that, there is no word that can possible even scrape at the enormity of the universe. And even more, the universe contains, billions, trillions of galaxies, if not more. Each containing a staggering amount of planets, stars, and who know what else.

I bet that there are or at least were, thousands of beings JUST as complex as we are if not more. Understand also that the time earth has been in existence is seconds in the universe.


But people always say "If their so complex, then how come they haven't found us yet."

Spoiler: Open

http://www.williamsclass.com/EighthScienceWork/PlanetStarImages/earthvenuspict1.jpg[/img]
http://www.williamsclass.com/EighthScie ... npict2.jpg[/img]
http://www.williamsclass.com/EighthScie ... spict3.jpg[/img]
http://www.williamsclass.com/EighthScie ... spict4.jpg[/img]
http://www.williamsclass.com/EighthScie ... spict5.jpg[/img]

Earth does not even register on the scale of the universe. How the hell could another being find us, much less travel to us.

I think that is just ridiculously stupid to doubt that there are other complex lifeforms in the universe. Even though the conditions for complex life is so critical, guess what... we have a lot of chances to spare.

 

[Stardust]

"Finding a Twin Earth" Article

It's sounding more and more likely that another planet can have Earth-like qualities...

 

[Diaforetikos]

Has anyone ever heard of the geological era known as the Cambrian Explosion of Life? It dates back 530,000,000 years ago. It shows that the Cambrian fossils started at the same time, rather than branching from a single one. This disrupts Darwin's theory of natural selection. Meaning that life being possible on another planet through sheer luck of the planet generator is impossible, even if there are planet like Earths. I don't think we will find one so close to our planet, even with the power of our telescopes.

And I don't know if your aware of this, but our solar system is set between 2 spiral arms in the Milky Way. Meaning there is no gas to block our view of any other planet. So, we have a perfect clear atmosphere, and our Solar System is in a clear area of any gases or lights to blind us from seeing any farther in the universe. What are the chances that great minded creatures such as ourselves would be in a perfect position to study the stars and the universe that surrounds us? 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. So even if there was another planet out there with the perfect settings for logic minded creatures to exist, they wouldn't even be able to see us. I don't think that was chance that we got position in a clear area.

 

[mawk]

I think of all the various things that the Cambrian Explosion could prove, creation isn't one of them. There were less complex organisms long before the Explosion, as well as some rather complex ones -- creatures didn't appear out of nowhere. It was a massive increase in biodiversity, possibly caused by global exposure to a mutagen or something like that. Did God do it? Maybe. Does this mean that life cannot possibly exist anywhere but our planet, for we are the ultimate creation, filled with divine wisdom? Don't kid yourself. This is one problem I've always had with Christianity -- the sheer ego. Humans are cool, but a couple looks at society and I'd hardly call us "great-minded." We can make tools and form complex social structures -- that's about it.

As for your arguments involving Earth's placement... First off, please don't pull huge random numbers out of thin air to support your points. Secondly, while chances are slim, it's certainly possible -- especially if you allow that many planets may support sapient life, in which case the odds become a great deal shorter. One of them sapient planets was bound to show up in one of them-there arm medians sooner or later, I reckon.

I understand that these are your reasons for your opinions, but it always grates on my nerves when people use religion to explain their opinions on scientific matters. The two should never, never meet.

 

[Diaforetikos]

All your reasons are true.

And yes, I am using my Christian belief as a drive for my findings, but I am also viewing things with an opened mind. It seems that you are fixed on the belief that it was by chance that Earth and its beings were created as I am fixated on the belief that God did it. But I am very open. There is always "new" evidence that says things can be proven scientifically. But I don't think another Earth could exist.

There are mathematicians that say that it is impossible or very close to impossible for there to be another chance human life.

These links aren't evidence and prove nothing, but give a little more incite.
*note - WATCH WITH AN OPEN MIND.* : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o7OSNDqY9g
Heres another link to a similar video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7Wj6_DLV0M

 

[heromarcostrago]

I believe that there may be advanced life forms out there. But to say they are higher life forms than us humans... Well, that stretches it a bit for me; however, I just sit outside of my house on a clear night with a starry sky and just lay back observing the spacious heavens and smile. It is quite awesome. No accident caused it all to happen nor do aliens like from Hitchhikers' guide to the galaxy. Sorry, got carried off topic. But reasonably speaking, how could there not be life forms outside of our little planet on the outer reaches of the Milky Way? It just seems impractical to me at least that there’s millions if not more planets, solar systems, galaxies out there that we know of to not be another earth like planet. Earth-like meaning that it possesses the key ingredients to support life more advanced than one or two celled organisms. I mean, come on, and let’s face it. Certain organisms, aliens or whatever you want to call them, are bound exist just not the way we understand right now. Quantum Mechanics is a pipe dream for sci-fi fanatics and scientists. So, who’s to say that there might not be a super DNA-based computer out there (I know the all spark, ala Transformers 2007), but is a likely possibility. Anyway, I am just stating that the ideal conditions for life on this planet or our solar system aren’t necessarily what are kosher for life elsewhere. We hypothesize about the possibility of life being out there and based these ‘educated guesses’ on what we know of to be true on our own planet. What’s to say that the process and chemical reactions, what have, is the only formula for life forms to spring forth from the primordial poll for lack of a term that escapes me at the moment? I am a diehard sci-fi fan. Star Wars, 20,000 leagues below the seas, Time Machine, and so on. I am also talented linguistic to use the term loosely. I speak (read, and write also) fluent Spanish, Japanese, some mandarin Chinese, read Italian and French (bad at speaking, lol), some Hebrew and some Tagalog (Filipino), some Korean, a couple of greetings in Tibetan. So, I would thrive on there being life forms out there for the sheer purpose of being the bridge that connects our society and an ET society from somewhere out here in the galaxy. My case in point, the universe is too immense and packed full of galaxies, which are crammed with planets of all shapes, sizes, chemical and what have you make ups and solar systems with their stars, suns, whatever for there not to be life as we know it or not as we know out there. I rest my case.

 

[Stardust]

Why would a god create thousands, millions, billions of planets and only give life to one planet?  We're not all-powerful, we're not special, we're just lucky.  Lucky that we have a suitable environment for us, lucky we have a moon to protect us from comets, and lucky a huge asteriod hasn't slammed into us for a long time.  Given the fact that we don't know the size of the universe, I don't see how anyone can come up with a formula and say, "There is no way life can exist anywhere else!"  For starters, probability isn't a definite thing.  If something happens 1 out of 10 times, it doesn't always have a 9 gap between them.  Sometimes they come right after each other, but don't come, on average, more than once every 10 times.

Also, from what I've read from the twin Earth article, I assume we can't see planets that are close to a sun and we rely on shadows to determine the sizes of planets.  It's foolish to think that our planet is the ultimate, supreme planet for life to exist on and that it can never happen again.  Like Chimmy said, religion isn't a good way to justify your views.  However, I like that you're willing to fight for your beliefs and remain open at the same time.  It does bother me that you don't believe in evolution, though.  I heard on a news channel (I think either McCain or Obama said it) that more people believe in angels than in evolution, which scares me beyond words.  It scares me because people believe a text that could have been falsified through the numerous copies over scientific evidence.  I guess it's not surprising, though, since there are still people that believe the Earth is flat.