NASA seems to think they have found evidence (methane) of living organisms on Mars. I wonder if they have and if they have, could there be another explanation. Article seems to say there might be other causes.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30456664
I also wonder if the Curiosity Rover was programmed in JOVIAL like NATS system* :-)
* I think it possibly is.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 16 Dec 14 at 19:29
|
Did you see this yesterday?
Thousand of feet beneath the seabed.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30489814
"Samples were taken from the ancient coal bed system that lies at this depth, and were returned to the ship for analysis.
The team found that microbes, despite having no light, no oxygen, barely any water and very limited nutrients, thrived in the cores."
Gives any Mars theories some credence in my humble opinion.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 16 Dec 14 at 19:32
|
I find it difficult to believe that in a universe that stretches to infinity in every direction that Planet Earth is the only one of a limitless number of stars, planets etc that has any form of life on it.
|
|
I'm of the same opinion Stuartli. There has to be other solar systems with the right conditions for life to have evolved like on Earth. Whether there was another planet in our own solar system supporting life is something else.
|
"Whether there was another planet in our own solar system supporting life is something else."
They have taken slices of meteor rocks and discovered amino acids inside. So although life evolved on Earth it's possible that it began somewhere else and was delivered by meteor. We may not be indigenous.
|
>> They have taken slices of meteor rocks and discovered amino acids inside. So although life
>> evolved on Earth it's possible that it began somewhere else and was delivered by meteor.
>> We may not be indigenous.
I know a couple of people who are definitely aliens.
|
>> I know a couple of people who are definitely aliens.
>>
Do they post on here?...;-)
|
Further to that is the definition of "life" and its "requirements/indicators".
The need for water, oxygen, carbon etc. is what our definition of life requires. I see no reason to suppose that is the only "type".
|
>> I find it difficult to believe that in a universe that stretches to infinity in
>> every direction that Planet Earth is the only one of a limitless number of stars,
>> planets etc that has any form of life on it.
>>
>>
>>
If the universe does stretch to infinity (the "observable" universe is tiny in comparison), then logically there's an infinite number of identical Earths, with an identical me and an identical you, along with every possible permutation therein.
I don't think the universe is infinite. I also suspect that there's life elsewhere simply because it strikes me as unlikely that we're the only planet where the happy coincidence that generated life occurred.
|
>>I don't think the universe is infinite.
I don't see how it can not be. If there is a border, how can there not be something the other side of the border?
|
>> >>I don't think the universe is infinite.
>>
>> I don't see how it can not be. If there is a border, how can
>> there not be something the other side of the border?
It could border itself, whereby there is no border. If it doesn't its feasible to border nothing. Although nothing, absolutely nothing at all, its a terribly hard concept to consider. In fact we can't visualise "nothing" because there is nothing to visualise.
|
To get 'how could it not be?' you need to think in more than three dimensions. That gets a bit brain-hurty, but the best suggestion I've heard is to think of a purely two-dimensional world. It might appear to be infinitely flat, but if it was wrapped around a big enough sphere, no-one would ever notice. That's analogous to the 'curvature' of four-dimensional space-time, so it could all join up round the back.
As for other earth-like planets, yes, it's likely there are. But don't assume that life originated here automatically just because it was an earth-like planet; it needed an awful lot of happy accidents to bring about life - something the god-botherers like to misappropriate for their own nefarious ends.
Doesn't mean it couldn't happen on another suitable world, of course, just that it's not the foregone conclusion RTJ's words might suggest.
|
>> then
>> logically there's an infinite number of identical Earths, with an identical me and an identical
>> you, along with every possible permutation therein.
>>
Why? Infinity minus one is still infinity.
Infinity minus a billion billion billion ... possibilities is still infinity.
|
>> Why? Infinity minus one is still infinity.
But some infinities are bigger than others:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument#Consequences
|
>> Infinity minus one is still infinity.
And that nothingness at the edge of infinity might just be a bit of a gap between two infinities. I guess there could be an infinite number of infinities, including infinities where there wasn't one.
|
>> And that nothingness at the edge of infinity might just be a bit of a
>> gap between two infinities. I guess there could be an infinite number of infinities, including
>> infinities where there wasn't one.
>>
>>
There can be no such thing as nothing. Even if the universe has a border somewhere there has to be a space beyond it, even if there's nothing in it.
|
|
If there are infinite possibilities, surely one of them must be one where nothing is actually nothing?
|
"Nothing" is easy to define and visualise.
But if you're having trouble with that concept just think of Saturday night TV listings.
See? Nothing, nothing at all.
|
>> There can be no such thing as nothing. Even if the universe has a border
>> somewhere there has to be a space beyond it, even if there's nothing in it.
Of course there can be nothing. Its just that we can't grasp the concept.
Is space with nothing in it, nothing?
|
>>Is space with nothing in it, nothing?
No, its just empty. 'Cept of course, its not. Its got bits in it, just not many.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 16:00
|
>> >>Is space with nothing in it, nothing?
>>
>> No, its just empty. 'Cept of course, its not. Its got bits in it, just
>> not many.
might be a place in space where the all bits din't get to. or they left.
|
|
Ok, but its bitless, not nuffin'
|
>> Ok, but its bitless, not nuffin'
As I said nothing is a difficult concept to visualise.
What is nothing? and why isn't empty space nothing.
|
>>
>> As I said nothing is a difficult concept to visualise.
>>
>> What is nothing? and why isn't empty space nothing.
>>
Because it's there, so it must be something even if there is nothing in it. And it is either infinite or there is something else beyond it.
|
|
Of course "finding it difficult to believe" does not constitute much in the way of an argument. The problem is that with the Earth the only place where life is known to exist in the universe we are looking at a statistical sample of one. That is why evidence of life on Mars would be so exciting
|
I'm pretty much at peace with the concept of life being present elsewhere but whether it's "intelligent" as we'd describe it or whether it exists now in our current time or existed billions of years ago or is yet to evolve could be a very different thing.
If there are little green men or even ones who look a bit similar to us out there right now with similar technological skills that would be a heck of a coincidence but part of me hopes there is.
Live long and prosper. ✌ï¸
|
Of course if we believe there is teeming intelligent life out there we encounter the Fermi paradox
Where the hell is everybody?
|
You're everywhere and nowhere baby
That's where you're at.
|
There's also the concept of a dimension here on Earth which we aren't aware of. John Wyndham wrote, in his story ' Pawleys Peepholes ' about this dimension ' coming to life ' and becoming visible. The people who appeared would not be impeded by us or our buildings, etc and nor would we by them.
So, you could be sat on your settee and a pair of legs, from the knees down would walk through the wall, 6ft above the floor and disappear through the opposite wall. People would walk through each other in the street or be sat or a bus would drive through them when they were sat in the pub..
An interesting concept.
Some scientists say the universe has an end and after that there's nothing. My grey walnut sized brain can't take that in at all. I wonder if we'll ever find out. I read somewhere that, even at warp speed, it would take 83K years to reach the nearest star.
You'd need a ruddy big rocket to carry all the food and water needed...and what about the breeding programme to keep replenishing the crew ?
Beam me up, Snotty !
|
>> If there are little green men or even ones who look a bit similar to
>> us out there right now with similar technological skills that would be a heck of
>> a coincidence but part of me hopes there is.
Yeah, but if they make you sales manager of Europe and the planet Zsargon think how many miles you will rack up in the LEC
|
|
And if they are octopeds, that's a lot of shoes.
|
Reckon I'd be up for the 3 litre if they gave me Zsargon.
You're doing well, but we've decided you're not ready quite yet, another few generations though and you might be advanced enough for "it".
;-)
|
Is there a Primark on Zsargon...Z ?
|
>>
>> Is there a Primark on Zsargon...Z ?
Has to be, its common init?
|
|
Is there intelligent life in Primark?
|
Primark was a test.
You failed, you're just not ready yet.
Don't lash up on the Lidl thing.
|
One of the brightest stars, Capella (actually a star system), in the east, is 42.2 light years away from Earth.
None of us could even begin to comprehend just how far that distance is in the form of 186,000 miles per second or 671 million miles per hour, yet Capella is clearly visible despite all the billions of objects in between it and Earth.......
What is really mind boggling is who or how the universe was conceived (and I am aware of the basic theories), but it must be more educated guesses than genuine facts.
|
|
How long would it take to get there if Runfer had an AMG 63 estate? Assuming it could escape planet earths sucking power.
|
>>None of us could even begin to comprehend just how far that distance is in the form of 186,000 miles per second
Voyager 1 is now outside out solar system and 'racing' at 1 light year per 18,000 years (10 miles per second) towards our neighbours.
It's a big ole place out there.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 16 Dec 14 at 23:39
|
Yes, life is sparse in the universe and a long way away.
If there is any intelligent life, we just have to hope that isn't nastier than us and that it hasn't developed means of getting at us. The thought of first contact is an alarming one.
|
Could someone please explain "escape velocity" to me.
Because surely even 1 mile per fortnight would be sufficient if you just kept on doing it. Why does there have to be a minimum speed? Or is it simply that it must be in a constant direction?
|
>> Could someone please explain "escape velocity" to me.
...escape velocity is the speed at which the sum of an object's kinetic energy and its gravitational potential energy is equal to zero. It is the speed needed to "break free" from the gravitational attraction of a massive body, without further propulsion, i.e., without spending more fuel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
Eg. muzzle velocity of a bullet. If you do have propulsion then you can go as slow as you like, as demonstrated by Peter Sellers in 'The Mouse That Roared'.
|
>>we just have to hope that isn't nastier than us
That'd be going some.
|
>> That'd be going some.
Grounds for cautious optimism then...
|
>> we just have to hope that isn't nastier than
>> us and that it hasn't developed means of getting at us.
If the statement that because the universe is infinite so somewhere there must be another Earth is true, then there must also be lots of other nastier Earths.
If all possibilities of nastier more advanced Earths exist, then there must somewhere be one that has already spotted us, has the means of getting here, but has decided we are so primitive it isn't even worth sending a probe to find out.
In fact the most intelligent of this infinity of other life forms won't even categorise us as being life at all. Why bother exploring a planet covered in inert dust?
|
The universe isn't infinite.
It is expanding at an accelerated rate however.
|
>> The universe isn't infinite.
>>
>> It is expanding at an accelerated rate however.
>>
How do you know ? - that it isn't infinite I mean. The observable universe, i.e. The universe the universe for which light can have reached Earth since the Big Bang is currently 14 billion light years across but beyond that is by definition unknowable.
|
|
Isn't it being very egocentric to assume that our Big Bang is the only one?
|
|
It's the only knowable one.
|
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams
|
|
If our Universe is expanding, then a "few" years ago Mars would have been in Earths current orbit, and there's no reason to doubt that it could have supported life. As Mars moved away, Earth moved into it's current position as Venus will eventually do, as Earth moves away. It could be, that if Mars did also have life it may have been as intelligent as life is here today. Realising that Mars was becoming uninhabitable due to the expansion, they may have had similar technology , and like "us" who are looking at going outwards to Mars, they moved inwards to Earth. One day sometime in the future when Earth moves further out, We may do the same. and move inwards to Venus, and then future Scientists may ask "was there life on Earth"?.
Last edited by: devonite on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 12:23
|
>> Realising that Mars was becoming
>> uninhabitable due to the expansion, they may have had similar technology , and like "us"
>> who are looking at going outwards to Mars, they moved inwards to Earth.
>>
>>
UKIP will have something to say about that.
|
>> We may do the same. and
>> move inwards to Venus, and then future Scientists may ask "was there life on Earth"?.
>>
>>
We'll be all right until the supply of planets runs out. But after Venus there's only Mercury left.
We've worked our way inwards all the way from Neptune, but the end is in sight. It makes life seem pointless after all.
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 13:54
|
"It could be, that if Mars did also have life it may have been as intelligent as life is here today."
Nonsense. The Mars Rover Probe would have photographed all the plastic bags.
|
Surely there must be life on another planet that has developed and created such marvels as Russell Brand, the X Factor, Liverpool winning a football match, the steam driven car, the inspiring political leader known as Nick Clegg and so many other wondrous things?
On the other hand, perhaps just as well if not.
|
Why don't time travellers come back and do the lottery? I would.
Edit - and why didn't Mystic Meg win every week?
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 15:25
|
|
The story goes that When Kelvin Mackenzie was editor of the Sun he sent a letter telling the Horoscope compiler that he was fired with the opening line, "As you will already know...."
|
Even if you could easily travel in time and you wanted to suddenly be in a newsagent one hour before last Saturday's lottery draw, and you obviously know the 6 numbers to pick - you'd be dead. You'd be floating around in space.
You see the Earth, 5 days ago, is millions and millions and millions of miles away from the point is it right now. Your newsagent is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, the solar system is spinning within our galaxy at... god know's what speed, and the galaxy is spinning around the central mass of the entire universe at... faster than a Caterham let's say.
So if you can travel in time, you're going to need a space ship and a sat nav.
|
>>So if you can travel in time, you're going to need a space ship and a sat nav. >>
Will a smart phone suffice?
|
>> >>So if you can travel in time, you're going to need a space ship and
>> a sat nav. >>
>>
>> Will a smart phone suffice?
no, you have a technological mismatch to deal with. You think star treck communicators piggy back on o2?
|
Wouldn't need to travel in time if you had a really smart phone. You could just phone yourself from the future and tell yourself the lottery numbers.
I might invent that.
|
>> Wouldn't need to travel in time if you had a really smart phone. You could
>> just phone yourself from the future and tell yourself the lottery numbers.
Technological problems, when you moved forward in time you didn't pay your phone bill in the intervening time and your contract was cancelled.
|
|
Nah, you've only got to go back a couple of days. Tell you it's a runner this. Just need some geezer with a soldering iron and spots to build one.
|
"Will a smart phone suffice?"
That could be the way - perhaps Runfer could telephone himself back in time and tell him the lottery numbers without travelling anywhere. But then he'd have to rent a powerful transmitter, price of a (very, very, very) long distance call, conversation delay and of course the big cost - time paradox... It's gonna cost him.
|
|
I'd just send a text. Cheaper.
|
|
What if you didn't answer your own calls?
|
>>Why don't time travellers come back and do the lottery?
They come back, choose someone, get them to claim the win and in return for keeping half they invest the other half for Mr & Mrs Jetson to claim in the future.
Its already happened loads.
Obs.
|
SQ for Mr Lazy pants again!
>> Its already happened loads.
>>
>> Obs.
Most of the lottery winners I have seen appear to be Neanderthals - how does that fit?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 18:47
|
Well, you're not going to choose someone too smart as your patsy are you, they might steal the money.
Surprises me that you haven't already been contacted.
|
Life on Mars.... - Lygonos
