Life on other planets?

[Syntarsus]

One possibility is that ET will be machines, maybe like Transformers.

Most of our space exploration has been done with robot explorers because human bodies evolved for living on earth are really problematic for space travel. All we have to do is develop AI or figure how to upload our consciousness into a computer/machine and long distance space travel becomes far more doable.

[assasincz]

Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. Hitch-hiking through it would, indeed, be rather time-consuming. In comparison, the modern, information hungry man has been around only for a couple of thousands of years; we are aware of the possibility of extraterrestrial life for, essentially, only decades.

I reckon it is all a game of odds. Maybe the "aliens" were around 50.000 years ago - but nobody gave a damn. Maybe the "aliens" would pop by 50.000 years into the future - but humanity won't be around to greet them by then. Odds, I say.

[sbooder]

And do not forget, even if aliens did arrive, we would need Babel Fish to understand them!

[king-jaffethehutt]

But at least we could give them the meaning of life, 43? or at least I think!?

Thanks Douglas.......Ford prefect still makes me laugh

[sbooder]

42!

[king-jaffethehutt]

Cheers Simon,

Orion nebula!! should have remembered that

[Syntarsus]

I reckon it is all a game of odds.

I heard on a science radio program that there are two lots of scientists with different views. The physicists/ cosmologists look at the shear scale of the universe and think there must be life elsewhere. But those approaching from a biological sciences look at the improbability of life getting started in the first place.

So the probability of earth like planets is undoubtedly very high - no doubt there are very many of them out there. But since we don't yet know how life got started then it's impossible to work out the probability of that. And the journey from viruses up to intelligent technological civilization is surely fraught with many other necessary but very low probability events too.

So there are two lots of odds: first looking out at the universe, and secondly looking in at our own evolution. The first makes ET seem probable but the second perhaps makes it improbable.

[Moonshane]

The thought is that because you can't have fire underwater, marine species won't develop technologically. It's an argument from ignorance really though. Just because someone can't imagine how a marine species would technologically develop, they assume such species CAN'T technologically develop. The same type of argument is used by ID proponents.

Many aspects of technological development can be easier or harder depending on the environment, but even a poor environment won't make the possible absolutely impossible.

various metals (like potassium

) 'burn' when in contact with water, you'd just need a mechanism for capturing the energy (like an engine).

the main issue though as stated is that according to our knowledge of the mechanism, in order for evolution to occur you need to two elements referred to by Simon. If there's no advantage/mutation which creates a disproportionate quantity of a certain gene (that creates the advantage/has the mutation) within a population then there is nothing for evolution to change and therefore an equilibrium should exist. This again on current theory seems highly unlikely so there's a very good (almost inevitable) chance that there is advanced life out there.

Unfortunately, I personally doubt we'll ever see it.

[Superewza]

And do not forget, even if aliens did arrive, we would need Babel Fish to understand them!

Maths is the only universal language. If you want to practice for when they do arrive you can always try to speak to Dolphins

Actually, on that subject, i remember a story a while back about a girl who was taken to see dolphins practically every day while she was growing up, and apparently she could speak to them. Perhaps the key to translating is to raise a child half with one party and half with the other. Might be difficult to get the parents to agree, or to make the aliens understand the arrangement in the first place, but still

[barkis]

Extra Terrestrials? They may/probably do exist. Have they/ will they visit our neighbourhood? More than extremely unlikely.

We earthlings are mindbogglingly years away from Interstellar travel capability, and although that Neutrino travelled at lightspeed plus, to give hope that machines will one day transport man between the galaxies, I fear our own planet will be facing it's demise before that day dawns. I think physics is pretty much physics whichever galaxy you reside in, with the same grandoise dreams of any inhabitants doomed to be just that, dreams.

The best we can hope for, is to play in our own backyard. Lets face it, there is plenty do in it. All those planets/ moons to visit/explore, and indeed, the need to do so may well be very necessary, as our planets resources are diminishing at a rate of knots now.

We'll have to make do with reading science fiction, and re running Star Wars and the like, and carry on dreaming.

Just twopennyworth from a Doubting Thomas .

Ron

[Marmite]

...[T]hat Neutrino travelled at lightspeed plus...

Um, no, it didn't.

[barkis]

Um, no, it didn't.

Then that rules out any hope at all, other than Worm Holes.

[Syntarsus]

I didn't think you need to go faster than light speed because the closer you get to light speed the more timer (for you) slows down, so you could, in fact, make an unfeasibly long journey.

As for physics I think there's a whole lot of stuff we don't yet understand.

[Marmite]

I didn't think you need to go faster than light speed because the closer you get to light speed the more timer (for you) slows down, so you could, in fact, make an unfeasibly long journey.

The thing of it is that for an object with mass to reach even an appreciable percentage of the speed of light in a vaccum requires enormous energy, and increases the mass of that object.

The faster the object with mass, the greater the energy requirements and the greater the mass, until you very soon get to a point where it's just not going to happen: near C in a vacuum, the object has almost as much mass as the Universe and requires as much energy as exists in the Universe just to maintain that speed, which of course means it's a hopeless dream.

As for physics I think there's a whole lot of stuff we don't yet understand.

Everything we do understand survives every test.

Physicists aren't sitting around a bonfire on a beach, passing 'round the bong and saying, "Oh wow, man, I just had this awesome idea!", to a chorus of "Whoa! Awesome! I bet that's the answer, dude!"...they have a pretty good idea of what's really going on.

If only the same could be said about their critics.