Discovery of the First Earth-Like, Habitable Exoplanet Will Be Announced in May 2011

slade_x

Rubecula wrote: »

I hope not, that makes me even older. ROFL

Gravity drives? How would that work? You produce artificial gravity and attract everything you pass by, your spaceship would be the size of a planet by the time you got anywhere.... with you in the middle.

objects massive enough noticably distort space and we see it through its bending effects of a light source behind it. every object with mass distorts space to some extent it just has to be large enough of a distortion so we can detect it

The theory behind a gravity drive would be that they could distort space so much that it would then start to overlap on itself so you would have two points practically occupying the same space. both points could be large distances apart and the procedure could be repeatable any number of times. Much like drawing two points on opposite ends of a sheet of a4 paper and then bending or distorting the paper so that the points will meet. in this analogy the paper is the fabric of space time

redt0m

So if we left today in a lightspeed ship and it took us 20 years to get there and if there was intelligent life there observing our ship the whole 20 years, would they see us leave here and arrive at their planet at the same time? Would our trip be instantaneous to them?

Conor108

redt0m wrote: »

So if we left today in a lightspeed ship and it took us 20 years to get there and if there was intelligent life there observing our ship the whole 20 years, would they see us leave here and arrive at their planet at the same time? Would our trip be instantaneous to them?

Think they'd see the journey lasting 20 years, but the people on the ship would experience the journey taking less than 20 years. I think.

NoQuarter

redt0m wrote: »

So if we left today in a lightspeed ship and it took us 20 years to get there and if there was intelligent life there observing our ship the whole 20 years, would they see us leave here and arrive at their planet at the same time? Would our trip be instantaneous to them?

The intelligent life there wouldnt see us for 20 years because the light wouldnt have reached them yet! so as soon as the light reached their eyes they would see us and we would be there?

Thats my take on it

BArra

i saw a doc on discovery by hawking recently, it in theory put a train track going around the world and had a train that travelled at light speed

those passengers on the train aged slower than those on the outside viewing the train pass around the earth

so 10 years on the outside of the train was only 4 for those inside the train travelling at light speed

Conor108

NoQuarter wrote: »

The intelligent life there wouldnt see us for 20 years because the light wouldnt have reached them yet! so as soon as the light reached their eyes they would see us and we would be there?

Thats my take on it

Oh yeah! That makes sense!

TheUsual

BArra wrote: »

i saw a doc on discovery by hawking recently, it in theory put a train track going around the world and had a train that travelled at light speed

those passengers on the train aged slower than those on the outside viewing the train pass around the earth
so 10 years on the outside of the train was only 4 for those inside the train travelling at light speed

No need for a theory, atomic clocks (the most accurate clocks we have now) have been placed on military jets and flown at high speed. When they landed the clocks showed that time experienced on the jets was slower than that experienced by the matched atomic clock on the ground.

One of the big problems with reaching extreme sub-light speeds in the future is not accelerating but slowing down as you need to be able to slow down to land on a far away planet. This is a huge engineering challenge as well, losing velocity is a different engine to getting there in the first place.

rccaulfield

redt0m wrote: »

So if we left today in a lightspeed ship and it took us 20 years to get there and if there was intelligent life there observing our ship the whole 20 years, would they see us leave here and arrive at their planet at the same time? Would our trip be instantaneous to them?

Good question. I'll try figure it out and get back to you. Time is experienced at different rates so as you say 20 years for the earth crew travelling at light speed cannot be 20 years for the observers.
An amazing thing is we can only go at say around 150,000 miles per hour at the moment yet light speed is 66 billion, 9.6 million mph. so in reality 20 light years distance should take us 754 million years. EDIT- MPH figure is wrong here as corrected below-Thanks Snowstream!!!

Alliandre

wylo wrote: »

this is exciting stuff, just wondering though , what kind of technology could you have to see if theres life on it, is it possible to build a telescope that powerful that could look that closely at it to know if theres life? (i mean something even as simple as seeing green on it, and coming to assumptions its life)

If there is life, it could be possible to detect it via it's spectroscopic signature. i.e. certain chemicals detected could indicate life. Actually seeing evidence for life on a planet is a long way off.

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

We could pick up radio/televison waves from it if they are transmitting
Earth's radio and TV signals are being beamed into Space as we speak

Beyond a couple of light years TV/radio signals are going to get very noisy and difficult to detect, so there's no guarantee we would pick up anything form so far away.

snowstreams wrote: »

Are all the planets in the "goldilocks" zone of a red dwarf star likely to be tidally locked?
Being tidally locked like gliese 581 g means that the planet probably wouldnt be too hospitable.
The wind and weather on that planet would be extreme to say the least. But once the temperature is right, life could find a way to live.

It is likely that a significant fraction of planets in the habitable zones of M dwarf stars would be tidally locked. However, it doesn't mean there couldn't be life. If the atmosphere was thick enough, conditions might be ok. Especially if there was winds that transported heat from the bright side to the dark side.

Rubecula wrote: »

Is the planet four times the size of Earth or four times the diameter, or then again four times the mass?

Four times the size would give a higher probability of life as we know it than one four times the diameter which would be huge. Four times the mass would probably be four times the gravity and would be a heavy place to go to.

The minimum mass of the planet is 3.1 times the size of the Earth but could be as large as 4.3. The radius is estimated to be between 1.3 and 2 times the size of the Earth, depending on what exactly the planet is made of. The surface gravity could be between 1.1 and 1.7g.

Of course, this is assuming the planet actually exists. It's still hasn't been completely confirmed.

TheUsual wrote: »

Ok.

1./ Is this planet capable of suporting any life and if so can humans visit it ? Telescopes will not tell you that. Venus and Mars will never suport life but may look ok from a long way off.

Venus and Mars could quite possible support microbial life (Mars being way more likely than Venus).

I don't think we're anywhere near being able to tell it a planet is truely habitable. Just because it's orbiting in an area where liquid water could exist, doesn't mean there is any water. And there are many more conditions needed for life (especially intelligent life) other than liquid water.

snowstreams

rccaulfield wrote: »

...
An amazing thing is we can only go at say around 150,000 miles per hour at the moment yet light speed is 66 billion, 9.6 million mph. so in reality 20 light years distance should take us 754 million years...

I think you might have calculated out by a factor of 100. Lightspeed is 671 million mph. But that would still take about 89500 years to get there.

rccaulfield

snowstreams wrote: »

I think you might have calculated out by a factor of 100. Lightspeed is 671 million mph. But that would still take about 89500 years to get there.

Your right sorry-too little sleep and was rushing out the door- 670.6 million mph!

Mr Benevolent

If we focused as much energy on solving our planetary/civilisation problems as we do going to the Moon/Venus/Inhabitable Exoplanet X we'd have a much better life on Earth. I'm pro-space exploration but we are seriously getting ahead of ourselves.

Cú Giobach

Confab wrote: »

If we focused as much energy on solving our planetary/civilisation problems as we do going to the Moon/Venus/Inhabitable Exoplanet X we'd have a much better life on Earth. I'm pro-space exploration but we are seriously getting ahead of ourselves.

Ya, sure why bother with sport and art, why bother exploring the antarctic or the deep ocean, those museums must cost a few bob to keep going as well, lets get rid of them too.

One of the defining characteristics of the human race is our desire to explore, and understand the world and universe we live in.
Maybe we should spend less on ways to and finding new ways to kill each other and put that money into helping society and exploring our surroundings instead (there would be more than enough to go around).

TheUsual

Alliandre wrote: »

Venus and Mars could quite possible support microbial life (Mars being way more likely than Venus).

Not true at all, Venus is a runaway planet in terms of life. Pressure, temperature and the cloak of a permanent cloud make the planet a pure hell. Nothing we see here on earth can survive on Venus and nothing ever will. No scientist would ever argue as Venus being a planet for a colony.

Mars may have had microbial life at some stage in its development but it has no iron core now and never will again. This makes an atmosphere impossible as the solar winds would strip any man-made effort away.

slade_x

TheUsual wrote: »

Not true at all, Venus is a runaway planet in terms of life. Pressure, temperature and the cloak of a permanent cloud make the planet a pure hell. Nothing we see here on earth can survive on Venus and nothing ever will. No scientist would ever argue as Venus being a planet for a colony.

Venus is not a runaway planet in terms of life, it is a runaway planet in terms of trapped greenhouses gases, and undoubtedly yes, any organism we see on earth could probably not survive venus's harsh and extreme atmosphere. That does not preclude that any organism that we have absolutely no idea of or even a basis for a different type of biology could not survive there. we have absolutely no idea about any other life but that of on earth.

TheUsual wrote: »

Mars may have had microbial life at some stage in its development but it has no iron core now and never will again. This makes an atmosphere impossible as the solar winds would strip any man-made effort away.

Your statement make absolutely no sense, mars absolutely has an iron core, it is primarily iron among other elements like nickel and sulphur.

it also has an atmosphere which is primarily carbon dioxide (with very low quantities of argon, nitrogen and oxygen) although it is much much thinner than earths comparatively. Mars' atmosphere is suspected to be so thin because it either has an almost solid core or relatively none of it is left molten to facilitate the currents needed to drive a significant enough electric field to deflect charged particles.

Any man made effort to inhabite mars would be achieved through pressurised domes/ habitats

Rubecula

I have often wondered if future technology could kick start the core of Mars again and give it a magnetic field.

Far fetched I suppose, but who knows what the future holds?

Alliandre

TheUsual wrote: »

Not true at all, Venus is a runaway planet in terms of life. Pressure, temperature and the cloak of a permanent cloud make the planet a pure hell. Nothing we see here on earth can survive on Venus and nothing ever will. No scientist would ever argue as Venus being a planet for a colony.

Mars may have had microbial life at some stage in its development but it has no iron core now and never will again. This makes an atmosphere impossible as the solar winds would strip any man-made effort away.

Please note I said microbial life, not complex life. I'm talking about extremophiles, which have been found in what we consider to be inhospitable places on Earth.

There are a few astronomers who believe that there could be microbes present in Venus' atmosphere. It is a large stretch, yes, but not impossible. While the surface of Venus is to hot and the pressure is too high for life (as we know it), the atmosphere is not so inhospitable. At an altitude of 50km the temperature is around 70 degrees C and has a pressure of one atmosphere. The atmospheric composition there has been found to have some peculiarities, as hydrogen sulphide and sulfur dioxide coexist (they would normally react) so something must be producing them. While volcanic activity can produce these, the altitiude of these concentations does not fit with volcanic activity. Microbes also produce these chemicals, so there is a small chance that they do exist there. This is still contoversial, but not unproven.

Mars has an atmosphere, it's just not very thick and is not sufficient for complex life. While it does look like Mars might have been a habitable planet in the past (though this is still debated), there could still be microbes on Mars today, perhaps beneath the surface. There are some scientists who believe that the Viking experiments did find evidence of microbes, although this isn't widely believed. The "fossil" of a microbe in the meteorite ALH84001 is still being debated. And more recently, methane has been found on Mars. While this could be produced through volcanic activity, there has been no evidence of recent geological activity that would fit this, so it is possible that the methane is produced by microbes.

whynotdo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Ya, sure why bother with sport and art, why bother exploring the antarctic or the deep ocean, those museums must cost a few bob to keep going as well, lets get rid of them too.

Indeed,I forget who it was when asked "Why climb Mt Everest?"said "because it is there"

Many believe that as strong as the Gene's that
drive us to reproduce,We have a Gene to explore,the theory being We are Pre-programmed to to explore in order for the Species to survive even the death of our Sun.

Russia landed probes on Venus,They were built like a tank still only lasted long enough to barely photograph small sections before athmospheric pressures crushed the landers.
The surface looked Literally like how Hell is perceived by many.
hope i can find the CD i used to save My favouries folder to before reinstalling My OS as i had a few photo's from the surface of Venus on it .

maninasia

Alliandre wrote: »

If there is life, it could be possible to detect it via it's spectroscopic signature. i.e. certain chemicals detected could indicate life. Actually seeing evidence for life on a planet is a long way off.



Beyond a couple of light years TV/radio signals are going to get very noisy and difficult to detect, so there's no guarantee we would pick up anything form so far away.



It is likely that a significant fraction of planets in the habitable zones of M dwarf stars would be tidally locked. However, it doesn't mean there couldn't be life. If the atmosphere was thick enough, conditions might be ok. Especially if there was winds that transported heat from the bright side to the dark side.



The minimum mass of the planet is 3.1 times the size of the Earth but could be as large as 4.3. The radius is estimated to be between 1.3 and 2 times the size of the Earth, depending on what exactly the planet is made of. The surface gravity could be between 1.1 and 1.7g.

Of course, this is assuming the planet actually exists. It's still hasn't been completely confirmed.



Venus and Mars could quite possible support microbial life (Mars being way more likely than Venus).

I don't think we're anywhere near being able to tell it a planet is truely habitable. Just because it's orbiting in an area where liquid water could exist, doesn't mean there is any water. And there are many more conditions needed for life (especially intelligent life) other than liquid water.

This should be all termed 'life as we know it'. It's almost 100% likely that there are many different forms of life existing in different habitats and also likely that other types of life forms are more prevalent than ours ...all statistics really. Our type of life on Earth depends on water. Wow, what a coincidence, 70% of the Earth is covered in water!

You are basing your assumptions on an extremely small dataset i.e. the knowledge of Earth in the 21st century. Well that is kind of dumb isn't it...since there are billions of planets and dust clouds and stars and comets in the milky way alone.

In fact you are ignoring the development of silicon/AI based life forms as we are already on the way to artificially creating now!

TheUsual

slade_x wrote: »

That does not preclude that any organism that we have absolutely no idea of or even a basis for a different type of biology could not survive there. we have absolutely no idea about any other life but that of on earth.

Your statement make absolutely no sense, mars absolutely has an iron core, it is primarily iron among other elements like nickel and sulphur.

it also has an atmosphere which is primarily carbon dioxide (with very low quantities of argon, nitrogen and oxygen) although it is much much thinner than earths comparatively. Mars' atmosphere is suspected to be so thin because it either has an almost solid core or relatively none of it is left molten to facilitate the currents needed to drive a significant enough electric field to deflect charged particles.

Any man made effort to inhabite mars would be achieved through pressurised domes/ habitats

Wrong on both counts, Venus is as anti-life as any environment can be in the Universe. Nothing we know as life will exists there and the Russian priobe that was sent there melted. It's an obscene place for any kind of life. Forget it. The technology to survive there would be the same level as suviving the surface of our Sun.

And as for Mars you are wrong, the core is dead and it has no magnetism to deflect solar rays which make it another type of hell. The spinning Iron core we enjoy on Earth does not exist on Mars and so it makes no electro-magnetic defence. Even if we change the climate and add water, it will lose any atmosphere we build there. Mars is as dead and sterile as our moon. And always will be - if you disagree with then you need to do some reading.

TheUsual

Alliandre wrote: »

There are a few astronomers who believe that there could be microbes present in Venus' atmosphere. It is a large stretch, yes, but not impossible.


Mars has an atmosphere, it's just not very thick and is not sufficient for complex life. While it does look like Mars might have been a habitable planet in the past (though this is still debated), there could still be microbes on Mars today, perhaps beneath the surface.

Again Venus is fantasy in science. Nobody would back up the speculations you quote. Temperatures and pressures that would destroy anything, make your comments pure science fiction.
And again Mars is a dead end as a planet, any atmosphere we create there will be burned off into space by the solar winds. No magnetic protection against the Sun, and there never will be - it is not something you can change.
Forget both places as colonies ... even if they are beneath the surface.

Beeker

I have always found the topic of alien life fascinating. I believe that the universe is packed full of life, however I am not so sure about intelligent life. It is out there but it may be very rare.
Life has been on the Earth for almost 4 billion years. There are millions of species around today and have been many more millions that have ever existed. Yet out of all those possibilities over all those years, intelligence {at least as we define it} has emerged only once. Perhaps intelligence is very rare indeed. I would love to hear other people’s views on this.

Alliandre

maninasia wrote: »

This should be all termed 'life as we know it'. It's almost 100% likely that there are many different forms of life existing in different habitats and also likely that other types of life forms are more prevalent than ours ...all statistics really. Our type of life on Earth depends on water. Wow, what a coincidence, 70% of the Earth is covered in water!

You are basing your assumptions on an extremely small dataset i.e. the knowledge of Earth in the 21st century. Well that is kind of dumb isn't it...since there are billions of planets and dust clouds and stars and comets in the milky way alone.

In fact you are ignoring the development of silicon/AI based life forms as we are already on the way to artificially creating now!

Well we have to start by looking for life as we know it. Of course there could be other bizzare forms of life out there (I never said there couldn't - please don't call me dumb). But we have no idea how to detect other forms of life. So let's start with what we do know and work our way up from there.

TheUsual wrote: »

Again Venus is fantasy in science. Nobody would back up the speculations you quote. Temperatures and pressures that would destroy anything, make your comments pure science fiction.
And again Mars is a dead end as a planet, any atmosphere we create there will be burned off into space by the solar winds. No magnetic protection against the Sun, and there never will be - it is not something you can change.
Forget both places as colonies ... even if they are beneath the surface.

Did you actually read my post? I said microbial life. I never mentioned colonising either planet! My comments about microbial life are not science fiction, they are science fact. They are not my speculations, they are based on theories and research of other scientists. I can back this up with scientific journals if you wish.

slade_x

Did you even read my post? for that matter are you even reading your own posts

TheUsual wrote: »

Mars may have had microbial life at some stage in its development but it has no iron core now and never will again. This makes an atmosphere impossible as the solar winds would strip any man-made effort away.

TheUsual wrote: »

And as for Mars you are wrong, the core is dead and it has no magnetism to deflect solar rays which make it another type of hell.

I am wrong? how exactly am i wrong when i stated that yes in fact contradicatory to your post i stated mars's core does consist mostly of iron and also to quote my post

slade_x wrote: »

Mars' atmosphere is suspected to be so thin because it either has an almost solid core or relatively none of it is left molten to facilitate the currents needed to drive a significant enough electric field to deflect charged particles.

TheUsual wrote: »

The spinning Iron core we enjoy on Earth does not exist on Mars and so it makes no electro-magnetic defence.

Our core consists of a solid inner and liquid outer core. it is in the liquid core that current is induced through molten iron flow facilitated by the motion of our revolving planet among other factors. It does not create a field simply because a solid iron core is spinning at the heart of our planet.

To quote nasa.gov

The cause of Earth's magnetism is actually the Earth's internal dynamo, which is so hot that a typical iron magnet would lose its magnetism, anyway. In this super-hot core, electrically-conducting molten iron flows around through a magnetic field in a closed electric circuit. Because some of the fluid is moving in the magnetic field and some is not, and because a couple of other necessary conditions in the core are satisfied, an electric current starts up as per the laws of physics. As we learned before, the presence of electric currents starts up magnetism. When slow changes in the flow of molten iron in the core occur, the Earth's magnetic field varies.

As far as mars's core is concerned no one can state unequivocally that either its core is solid through and through or that relatively none of it is left molten enough to facilitate the currents needed to drive a significant enough field

We do not have that information yet, and so is still a topic of debate among planetary scientists

TheUsual wrote: »

Even if we change the climate and add water, it will lose any atmosphere we build there.

Again you obviously didnt read my post as i said and quote;

slade_x wrote: »

Any man made effort to inhabite mars would be achieved through pressurised domes/ habitats

Did i mention anything about trying to terraform the planets surface?

TheUsual wrote: »

Mars is as dead and sterile as our moon. And always will be - if you disagree with then you need to do some reading.

You have absolutely no idea what may reside on mars nor does anyone else on earth (whether its some sort of bacterial life beneath the surface of mars or not) No one can state otherwise. That is the mandate of humanity's current scientific projects to reveal.

Although since you seem to know otherwise you might want to drop the likes of nasa an email and inform them that the billions they will spend discovering mars and uncovering the actual facts pertaining to it with robotic and eventually manned missions alike that its all just a waste of everyones time and money. That simply the search for any type of life past or present on mars is over.

TheUsual

Alliandre wrote: »

Did you actually read my post? I said microbial life. I never mentioned colonising either planet! My comments about microbial life are not science fiction, they are science fact. They are not my speculations, they are based on theories and research of other scientists. I can back this up with scientific journals if you wish.

microbial
microbial
microbial
microbial

just because you put it in bold does not make it exist.
I call your bluff - please show me any evidence of microbial life outside Earth.
Just some links to other sites will do .... no ??
I thought not.

TheUsual

slade_x wrote: »

Did you even read my post? for that matter are you even reading your own posts

Yes I can read, but insults are the lowest form of debate unless you are 10 years old.

slade_x wrote: »

As far as Mars’s core is concerned no one can state unequivocally that either its core is solid through and through or that relatively none of it is left molten enough to facilitate the currents needed to drive a significant enough field.

We can see the magnetic field of Mars from Earth - which is puny and probably the reason Mars slowly lost its atmosphere over millennia. It is not something we can fix and so the planet is continuously irradiated from space.

slade_x wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea what may reside on mars nor does anyone else on earth (whether it’s some sort of bacterial life beneath the surface of mars or not) No one can state otherwise. That is the mandate of humanity's current scientific projects to reveal.

Well this moving from Science to Science-fiction and what you dream of finding on Mars as opposed as to what has been found so far.
Look you might be a teenager full of hope and promise for life on Mars but it will not happen, anyway keep looking. I know NASA are not expecting anything there. Any NASA projects there will be for valuable minerals and possible human visits - although the time to get there and back is restrictive and open to accidents.

maninasia

Basing your ideas on prevalance of life on only one example, us, is not a good way to go about things. The need for water, for a sweetspot, for a CLONE of earth. That's dumb in my book, nobody should focus too much on theories from one example, one solar system that is not even explored yet!

Not once did you mention other possibilities. You also ignored what we know about information processing, speed of technology development etc. It's very myopic and it's common among people who otherwise would have a good understanding of the current state of space science and science in general. As I said silicon/AI based lifeforms have better odds to be prevalent through the galaxy having many advantages over biological based forms in terms of lifespan, space travel capability, replication, evolutionary speed etc. They will not have the limitations that we have, they could even beam their intelligence at the speed of light between different robotic outposts, thereby travelling at the speed of light!

You didn't mention this once and while dumb may be a strong word it does point to ignorance and lack of thinking about things objectively. Even the term you used, 'bizarre life' forms, well we are probably bizarre to other life forms too! Beyond this we know FAR LESS than we know, if that makes any sense. Or the unknown unknowns must be far greater than the knowns and the known unknowns. Once we have better telescopes, better probes, better theories, bigger particle accelerators...we can get a clearer picture.

We can make estimates about our type of life but it is possible our type of life is not very relevant and not the dominant life forms out there. We could be an odd development and life could be more prevalent on gas giants, in plasma on stars, in giant dust and asteroid clouds, on brown dwarfs..what do we really know yet? Now if you mean proving that some type of life exists out there and looking for an example of that I agree it might be a good idea to start looking for similar to us (but not focusing too much on it to the detriment of an open mind).

I do agree microbial life should be quite prevalent though as they display all the characteristics to be able to travel and replicate through space already. Their early start on Earth and their seeming ancestry pointing back to one cell MAY point to off Earth origins.

Alliandre

TheUsual wrote: »

microbial
microbial
microbial
microbial

just because you put it in bold does not make it exist.
I call your bluff - please show me any evidence of microbial life outside Earth.
Just some links to other sites will do .... no ??
I thought not.

I put it in bold because you seemed to have failed to notice the word before that. I never said there was proof of microbial life yet. I said there was evidence that it might exist. Stop twisting my words. What makes you so certain that microbial life doesn't exist on other planets? Do you even know what an extremophile is? Most astrobiologists believe that microbial life is common in the solar system and likely throughout the universe. It is only a matter of time before we find something.

Here is the Astrobiology article about the possibility of microbial life existing on Venus: http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/15311070260192264

And here is the Science article about the release of methane on Mars and how it could be caused by microbial life there. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1165243

TheUsual wrote: »

Well this moving from Science to Science-fiction and what you dream of finding on Mars as opposed as to what has been found so far.
Look you might be a teenager full of hope and promise for life on Mars but it will not happen, anyway keep looking. I know NASA are not expecting anything there. Any NASA projects there will be for valuable minerals and possible human visits - although the time to get there and back is restrictive and open to accidents.

Not true. http://science.nasa.gov/missions/msl/ "As planned, the robotic laboratory will carry the most advanced payload of scientific gear ever used on Mars' surface, a payload more than 10 times as massive as those of earlier Mars rovers. Its mission: investigate the past or present potential of Mars to support microbial life."

maninasia wrote: »

Basing your ideas on prevalance of life on only one example, us, is not a good way to go about things. The need for water, for a sweetspot, for a CLONE of earth. That's dumb in my book, nobody should focus too much on theories from one example, one solar system that is not even explored yet!

Not once did you mention other possibilities. You also ignored what we know about information processing, speed of technology development etc. It's very myopic and it's common among people who otherwise would have a good understanding of the current state of space science and science in general. As I said silicon/AI based lifeforms have better odds to be prevalent through the galaxy having many advantages over biological based forms in terms of lifespan, space travel capability, replication, evolutionary speed etc. They will not have the limitations that we have, they could even beam their intelligence at the speed of light between different robotic outposts, thereby travelling at the speed of light!

You didn't mention this once and while dumb may be a strong word it does point to ignorance and lack of thinking about things objectively. Even the term you used, 'bizarre life' forms, well we are probably bizarre to other life forms too! Beyond this we know FAR LESS than we know, if that makes any sense. Or the unknown unknowns must be far greater than the knowns and the known unknowns. Once we have better telescopes, better probes, better theories, bigger particle accelerators...we can get a clearer picture.

We can make estimates about our type of life but it is possible our type of life is not very relevant and not the dominant life forms out there. We could be an odd development and life could be more prevalent on gas giants, in plasma on stars, in giant dust and asteroid clouds, on brown dwarfs..what do we really know yet? Now if you mean proving that some type of life exists out there and looking for an example of that I agree it might be a good idea to start looking for similar to us (but not focusing too much on it to the detriment of an open mind).

I do agree microbial life should be quite prevalent though as they display all the characteristics to be able to travel and replicate through space already. Their early start on Earth and their seeming ancestry pointing back to one cell MAY point to off Earth origins.

What are you basing your assumptions on? I never said that other forms of life aren't possible! Of course other forms of life would see us as bizzare, it depends on your frame of reference. Yes there could be AI out there. But can you tell me how we would detect it? SETI is very limited in what signals it can detect. If there is some silicon based lifeform out there, how do we detect that? It makes sense to start with what we know and to try and search for that first, before making a leap to more complicated things. Or do you think we should completely ignore the possibility of other carbon based lifeforms in the universe? Because that's just as ignorant.

The field of astrobiology studies past and present life on Earth in order to determine what type of life might exist elsewhere. All we have to go one is our own planet. Yes, it is a biased view. But it's still a good place to start. There aren't many journal articles out there about looking for other forms of life, because quite frankly they would be too alien for us to know what we're looking at. That doesn't mean they don't exist. I never said that.

Yes, when we have better technology we can get a better picture. But until then we have to make do with what we have and what we know. Believe me, I do have an open mind about extraterrestial life, I just think we need to start at the beginning.

whynotdo

Without getting into the politics of the thread (although it is nice to see the Astronomy buffs reclaiming the Astronomy section of A&S after what must have been an extra frustrating four Summers before 2010's:))

I would be astonished if there is no life both of a higher and lower nature in the Universe.
It stretch's the imagination way too much that all those Galaxies are there to provide us with a "romantic night Sky" twinkling Stars just for Our benifit:)

My own opinion is that the big bang/God......whatever did not put these there as leftovers of the Creation of us wonderful human beings who see ourselves as Superior not only to our next door neighbours but also to the uneducated and most of all those inferior beings on the Continents of Africa/Sth America

below Us is the'food chain' of Animals and so on down to an Amoeba(ar'nt they the clever ones,never developed the technology to obliterate the Planet they live on like us eejits)

Only Humankind could be stupid and arrogant enough to believe WE are the be all and end all.We are just critters,a fairly basic life form living in some much larger scheme of things. IMO.

Vikings 1 and 2 sampled the surface of Mars in mini-labs onboard after a scoop arm dropped samples of the Martian soil into them.
The feedback was mixed,but at least some readings showed possible microscopic life (as We define Microscopic)

With money now so scarce and yes something i have suggested before on A&S, i think the results of all the various probes and the studies by Earth and Space based instruments should be revisited,cross refrenced under a new dedicated agency to correlate the data and use the computer software now available to see where in fact We are at.

again as i said before the Truth might not be "Out there" It May already be here,if only Data lying under dust was re-examined.

slade_x

TheUsual wrote: »

Yes I can read, but insults are the lowest form of debate unless you are 10 years old.

Insults what insults, i merely point out the inconsistencies in your post

TheUsual wrote: »

We can see the magnetic field of Mars from Earth - which is puny and probably the reason Mars slowly lost its atmosphere over millennia. It is not something we can fix and so the planet is continuously irradiated from space.

No we cannot see mars magnetic field from earth. at present mars has no detectable field strength. scientists at nasa's jpl lab found evidence that some parts of mars crust have been magnetised which confirms for them mars had a siginificant enough magnetic field in its distant past. evidence thanks to the mars global surveyor. All the current expanded wealth of knowledge of mars has been acquired through satellites and rovers send to the martian planet.

TheUsual wrote: »

Well this moving from Science to Science-fiction and what you dream of finding on Mars as opposed as to what has been found so far.
Look you might be a teenager full of hope and promise for life on Mars but it will not happen, anyway keep looking. I know NASA are not expecting anything there. Any NASA projects there will be for valuable minerals and possible human visits - although the time to get there and back is restrictive and open to accidents.

What has been found so far does absolutely not preclude any possibility of what we may find or may not find in the future. the unlikely is not fact and absolutely unequivocally not Science. and no i am not a teenager nor do i have any sentimental hope invested on finding present day life on mars or even past life (of which there is cause for further study) to reiterate I never stated that i hope they find life on mars and my belief on the matter is irrelevant for this point. not finding evidence at this stage is not proof there of.