how many of u guys think aliens are there in the huge universe Watch

Poll: are aliens living in the wide universe
yes (73)
96.05%
no (3)
3.95%
g.bansal
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#41
(Original post by Friendly Liberal)
Would our discovering of alien bacteria mean that we're not alone?
yh
i think that it is how earth started of life.
and the planet will too someday,
but it will take a lot of time to have animals or plants like our planet to be seen in our lifetime.
0
quote
reply
g.bansal
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#42
i think that if we find aliens, then either they will be very advanced kind of aliens or possibly, advanced human race, or just purely animals, like a dinosaur era or something...
0
quote
reply
Hal.E.Lujah
  • Study Helper
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 years ago
#43
(Original post by Friendly Liberal)
None of those potentials have been seen nor found because there is a maximum range at which astronomers can peer into the Universe. The Universe is very homogeneous with large areas repeating as far as we can see, star systems, galaxies, all take a similar shape to our own solar system and galaxy. It would not make sense if this universal structure were to stop at the edge of the observable universe, as this boundary is arbitrary and is only defined as a limitation of our telescope capacity. I find the Fermi paradox too logically reductionist and points A and B are highly ignorant given the immeasurable size of the Universe.

What makes them ignorant then? To be honest I'm on a train and wanted to make a more articulate post before I was called ignorant by someone with a buzz word but I'll hear you out :lol:
0
quote
reply
Hal.E.Lujah
  • Study Helper
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 years ago
#44
(Original post by Friendly Liberal)
Would our discovering of alien bacteria mean that we're not alone?
If we find eukaryote cells of evidence of them on mars, then it's highly illogical that there isn't at least advanced life on other planets. Let alone something as complicated as bacteria.
0
quote
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 years ago
#45
(Original post by g.bansal)
i agree to what you say but dont you think that we use oxygen just because it was there, can there be aliens who can live on co2 and not on oxygen.......
can there be no adaptation to the environment?
As a budding biochemist, I can tell you that there is no life in the universe that breathes carbon dioxide in the same way we do oxygen. Oxygen is a highly reactive molecule, and by reacting it with other molecules such as glucose, organisms are able to extract energy that they use to power the cellular processes that make up life. Carbon dioxide cannot be used in the same way because it is very unreactive and it's impossible to react it with something and release energy. On the contrary, an energy input is required to cause carbon dioxide to react. This is how plants use it in photosynthesis - with the input of light energy from the sun.
0
quote
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 years ago
#46
(Original post by Friendly Liberal)
I swear this is written at the beginning of a sci movie whose name I forget. It's the movie with an android called Cal and a rectangular monolith floating next to Jupiter.
I think you're thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey. If so, the A.I. is named Hal.
0
quote
reply
LightBlueSoldier
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 years ago
#47
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
As a budding biochemist, I can tell you that there is no life in the universe that breathes carbon dioxide in the same way we do oxygen. Oxygen is a highly reactive molecule, and by reacting it with other molecules such as glucose, organisms are able to extract energy that they use to power the cellular processes that make up life. Carbon dioxide cannot be used in the same way because it is very unreactive and it's impossible to react it with something and release energy. On the contrary, an energy input is required to cause carbon dioxide to react. This is how plants use it in photosynthesis - with the input of light energy from the sun.
I really don't think you can just rule it out like that. The universe is just too big and there are too many possibilities. What about a superstructure with an internal light source that could essentially internally photosynthesise? There are potentially 100s of billions of sentient species in the universe and to rule anything that is not physically impossible out is foolish.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 years ago
#48
(Original post by LightBlueSoldier)
I really don't think you can just rule it out like that. The universe is just too big and there are too many possibilities. What about a superstructure with an internal light source that could essentially internally photosynthesise? There are potentially 100s of billions of sentient species in the universe and to rule anything that is not physically impossible out is foolish.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Then the life form would be using it for photosynthesis. My point was that CO2 could never be used as an electron acceptor in respiration in the same way that oxygen is. You say that to rule anything that is not physically impossible out would be foolish - well, using CO2 as an electron acceptor in that way is physically impossible.
0
quote
reply
LadyEcliptic
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 years ago
#49
Viruses could be aliens. so my biology teacher suggested, they don't really fit into any category.

I think if we are possible and with billions o planets still not discovered, then why not?
0
quote
reply
Misovlogos
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 years ago
#50
(Original post by WaceMindu)
| think someone did the maths and likelyhood of alien life once, taking into planets the correct distance from the sun and likelyhood of water being present and even a standard of error taken into account and the likelyhood of there being other life is still freaking huge.

we're also only factoring in our species specific boundaries for life. There is in all likelihood going to be forms of intelligent life that exist outside of our own corporial and physical boundaries. For example think of the heat spectrum. We exist in a very narrow segment of it before our carbon based protiens begin to denature and life is impossible.
there is a whole spectrum between -273K and upwards where other forms of non carbon based life could be possible that we might never even look for.

I would say it is incredibly likely that there is other intelligent life out there. What I don't think is likely is that we can or ever will reach it.
That's ridiculously futile: we have insufficient knowledge to usefully map the relevant variables, and thereby likelihood, of alien life.

The Fermi Paradox (which isn't a paradox), that given the existence of intelligent life, and the passage of cosmically minuscule time-constraints (which has been satisfied thousands of time over up to this point), many would be able to, and would proceed with, interstellar travel, colonisation and resource mining. It thus seems puzzling that, given high probability estimates of alien life, that we haven't detected any, despite efforts otherwise.

The most likely cause is an extremely low-probability barrier to something of the cognitive capacity of humans; tracing the development of life on earth, we can hazard guesses as to likely candidates (i.e. those crucial developments which took millions or billions of years to satisfy, and thus are leading candidates for exclusivity to earth). I think the evolution of multi-cellular organisms is perhaps the chief suspect.

(Original post by Friendly Liberal)
But we do not know the actual size of our universe. What is beyond the observable Universe? If the Universe is infinite then there are infinite me's and you's out there, and infinite me's and you's typing these exact words at exactly the same time!
I've seen this repeatedly rehashed, but it can be very easily accommodated by the Fermi Paradox: of course if the universe is infinite there is necessarily alien life, it simply reduces the 'paradox' down to the relevant scope of the universe under possible interaction (i.e. given repeated estimates of high-probability of alien life within the sphere of the universe under possible interaction, and the above-stated assumptions about low time-scales to interstellar travel, why haven't we encountered alien life).

(Original post by ryan9900)
Sounds like a question that a 5 year old child would ask. If you're asking if there is life out there, then yes, almost certainly.

Are there aliens with big googly eyes living on a space ship? No.
(Original post by ryan9900)
Very interested in space, with aspirations of being an astronaut.

The chances of life existing somewhere in the universe is very, very high. It just hasn't been found yet. I could go into a whole load of detail about it but it would be above most people unfortunately, especially OP. As I said, the question was very vague, and sounded child-like.
This is embarrassingly condescending: 'stop asking children's question, and oh yeah, I would explain, but it's too complicated for everyone but me'.
0
quote
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 years ago
#51
(Original post by g.bansal)
agreed
we are aliens for aliens
I think SerLorasTyrell was referring to the panspermia hypothesis, in which life in the form of resistant bacteria is delivered to the young Earth inside a meteorite or other space debris, and all life on Earth is descended from that bacteria. If that was true, we would all be aliens in that we would be descended from life of extraterrestrial origin.
0
quote
reply
Misovlogos
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 years ago
#52
(Original post by LadyEcliptic)
Viruses could be aliens. so my biology teacher suggested, they don't really fit into any category.

I think if we are possible and with billions o planets still not discovered, then why not?
This is extremely common, but equally bad, reasoning. In short: humanity's sample of observed phenomena is limited to those phenomena compatible with its own existence, as currently situated. That is to say, a condition of observation in the first place is that you are an intelligent life. Meaning, if there's only one instance of intelligent life in the universe, or millions of cases, the fact you're asking that question necessarily entails that you are such an intelligent life. Nick Bostrom, a famous philosopher and existential risk analyst, among other things, wrote his PhD on this subject, and termed it the 'observation select effect' (he gave it a mathematical proof, btw).
0
quote
reply
LadyEcliptic
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 years ago
#53
(Original post by Misovlogos)
This is extremely common, but equally bad, reasoning. In short: humanity's sample of observed phenomena is limited to those phenomena compatible with its own existence, as currently situated. That is to say, a condition of observation in the first place is that you are an intelligent life. Meaning, if there's only one instance of intelligent life in the universe, or millions of cases, the fact you're asking that question necessarily entails that you are such an intelligent life. Nick Bostrom, a famous philosopher and existential risk analyst, among other things, wrote his PhD on this subject, and termed it the 'observation select effect' (he gave it a mathematical proof, btw).
k :K:
0
quote
reply
WaceMindu
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 years ago
#54
(Original post by JindleBrey)
The Drake Equation?
Quite possibly, I can't remember if it even had a name, just something I've either read or possibly watched that laid it all out. I'll try and see if I can find it and post it in the thread.
0
quote
reply
LightBlueSoldier
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 years ago
#55
(Original post by Misovlogos)






This is embarrassingly condescending: 'stop asking children's question, and oh yeah, I would explain, but it's too complicated for everyone but me'.
The basic logic is actually extremely simple, which suggests that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It essentially boils down to: we exist, and there are lots of planets like earth*.


*lots means a bigger number than you can possibly imagine.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
reply
BullViagra
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 years ago
#56
its a mathematical certainty
0
quote
reply
Misovlogos
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 years ago
#57
(Original post by LightBlueSoldier)
The basic logic is actually extremely simple, which suggests that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It essentially boils down to: we exist, and there are lots of planets like earth*.


*lots means a bigger number than you can possibly imagine.


Posted from TSR Mobile
This is wrong for the reasons just stated in my post above, unfortunately:

"In short: humanity's sample of observed phenomena is limited to those phenomena compatible with its own existence, as currently situated. That is to say, a condition of observation in the first place is that you are an intelligent life. Meaning, if there's only one instance of intelligent life in the universe, or millions of cases, the fact you're asking that question necessarily entails that you are such an intelligent life. Nick Bostrom, a famous philosopher and existential risk analyst, among other things, wrote his PhD on this subject, and termed it the 'observation select effect' (he gave it a mathematical proof, btw)".
0
quote
reply
Misovlogos
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 years ago
#58
(Original post by BullViagra)
its a mathematical certainty
That's exactly what it's not.
0
quote
reply
noobynoo
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 years ago
#59
I am optimistic that we might one day find alien fossils on Mars.

Or alien fish in the Europa sea.

Or at the very least detect organic gasses on an extrasolar world.


I don't think we'll find signals from Alien worlds because think how hard it is to tune into Radio 1 from France let alone a few million light years away. We can't even see the planets with a telescope let alone signals from them. They would have to create a signal brighter than their own sun! Impossible. The only hope is if they sent a robotic probe to Earth because they detected life signs on it. But it would still take 3 million years going at Mach 1 to get to the nearest star.
0
quote
reply
jay2013
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 years ago
#60
Intelligent alien life? Probably very little.

Alien microorganisms or alien wildlife? Probably a lot.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (199)
27.56%
No (523)
72.44%

Watched Threads

View All