Is there life on other planets?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by kers123
So after all without even a single condition life cannot exist. Life cannot exist without anything!
But everywhere has light, heat or cold.
Probably. To quote the (underrated) film "Contact":
"I'll tell you one thing about the universe, though. The universe is a pretty big place. It's bigger than anything anyone has ever dreamed of before. So if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space. Right? "
"I'll tell you one thing about the universe, though. The universe is a pretty big place. It's bigger than anything anyone has ever dreamed of before. So if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space. Right? "
Original post by kers123
Pluto is like a gaseous globe so anything can move into and out of it. Life cannot exist there in this condition if the planet has no proper surface.
Pluto is made of rock and ice, it's not a 'gaseous globe'.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen
But again, there is no proof that a liquid is needed.
Some kind of solvent is needed for life as we understand it, in order to dissolve compounds and for chemical reactions to take place etc. it doesn't have to be water, there are dozens of potential candidates including ammonia, methane and formaldehyde.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by kers123
The condition does not need to be the same. I am saying there should be some surface or something to land on. That is why pluto is not considered to be a planet.
Pluto isn't considered a planet anymore because it too small, Jupiter has no surface to land on but it's still a planet...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by rakusmaximus
Some kind of solvent is needed for life as we understand it, in order to dissolve compounds and for chemical reactions to take place etc. it doesn't have to be water, there are dozens of potential candidates including ammonia, methane and formaldehyde.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
This is exactly my point.
Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen
This is exactly my point.
Until anyone can tell me how life could possibly exist without a liquid solvent, it's all well and good to think about, but it's not practical. We can only discuss things like this in terms of what we understand.
Posted from TSR Mobile
There must be life in other planets in the universe; going by pure numbers.
Lets make the assumption that one in a trillion stars are like our sun (this isn't true but I am too lazy to go out and search for exact figure and I am fairly confident that this figure if someone searches up will be significantly more than one in trillion).
20% of sun-like-stars have habitable planets (habitable for life like it exists on earth).
IAU believes there to be 70 x 10^21 stars in observable universe alone.
That gives us 14,000,000,000 habitable worlds by highly conservative estimates. Lets assume life can evolve in one in a billion of those worlds. That gives us 14 words with life similar to that of earth in universe; ie. 13 extraterrestrial life similar to that of earth. Of course probability of finding that life is low due to same reason why extraterrestrial life must exist; Fermi's paradox.
Yes but we need to start somewhere since unfortunately we have neither the technology nor resources to search everywhere. We have evidence of most prominent life existing and that is carbon based lifeform which breaths oxygen, drinks water and is fundamentally similar to humans on earth therefore it makes sense to start there and search for characteristics that enable life to exist in earth.
Lets make the assumption that one in a trillion stars are like our sun (this isn't true but I am too lazy to go out and search for exact figure and I am fairly confident that this figure if someone searches up will be significantly more than one in trillion).
20% of sun-like-stars have habitable planets (habitable for life like it exists on earth).
IAU believes there to be 70 x 10^21 stars in observable universe alone.
That gives us 14,000,000,000 habitable worlds by highly conservative estimates. Lets assume life can evolve in one in a billion of those worlds. That gives us 14 words with life similar to that of earth in universe; ie. 13 extraterrestrial life similar to that of earth. Of course probability of finding that life is low due to same reason why extraterrestrial life must exist; Fermi's paradox.
Original post by kk_15
It's the belief that life can only exist with water, oxygen and whatever else that prevents us from finding other lifeforms out there, if we're searching for things that are similar to us and so have the same requirements for staying alive then we will never learn anything new or discover new life!
We need to be open to the potential that "life" can exist with any components and just what's available even if there is no water or anything of that nature there. It's our reductionist outlook that the search is failing in my opinion.
We need to be open to the potential that "life" can exist with any components and just what's available even if there is no water or anything of that nature there. It's our reductionist outlook that the search is failing in my opinion.
Yes but we need to start somewhere since unfortunately we have neither the technology nor resources to search everywhere. We have evidence of most prominent life existing and that is carbon based lifeform which breaths oxygen, drinks water and is fundamentally similar to humans on earth therefore it makes sense to start there and search for characteristics that enable life to exist in earth.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by swanderfeild
There must be life in other planets in the universe; going by pure numbers.
Lets make the assumption that one in a trillion stars are like our sun (this isn't true but I am too lazy to go out and search for exact figure and I am fairly confident that this figure if someone searches up will be significantly more than one in trillion).
20% of sun-like-stars have habitable planets (habitable for life like it exists on earth).
IAU believes there to be 70 x 10^21 stars in observable universe alone.
That gives us 14,000,000,000 habitable worlds by highly conservative estimates. Lets assume life can evolve in one in a billion of those worlds. That gives us 14 words with life similar to that of earth in universe; ie. 13 extraterrestrial life similar to that of earth. Of course probability of finding that life is low due to same reason why extraterrestrial life must exist; Fermi's paradox.
Yes but we need to start somewhere since unfortunately we have neither the technology nor resources to search everywhere. We have evidence of most prominent life existing and that is carbon based lifeform which breaths oxygen, drinks water and is fundamentally similar to humans on earth therefore it makes sense to start there and search for characteristics that enable life to exist in earth.
Lets make the assumption that one in a trillion stars are like our sun (this isn't true but I am too lazy to go out and search for exact figure and I am fairly confident that this figure if someone searches up will be significantly more than one in trillion).
20% of sun-like-stars have habitable planets (habitable for life like it exists on earth).
IAU believes there to be 70 x 10^21 stars in observable universe alone.
That gives us 14,000,000,000 habitable worlds by highly conservative estimates. Lets assume life can evolve in one in a billion of those worlds. That gives us 14 words with life similar to that of earth in universe; ie. 13 extraterrestrial life similar to that of earth. Of course probability of finding that life is low due to same reason why extraterrestrial life must exist; Fermi's paradox.
Yes but we need to start somewhere since unfortunately we have neither the technology nor resources to search everywhere. We have evidence of most prominent life existing and that is carbon based lifeform which breaths oxygen, drinks water and is fundamentally similar to humans on earth therefore it makes sense to start there and search for characteristics that enable life to exist in earth.
In terms of the actual numbers it's estimated that there are 400 billion stars in the milky way. Rocky planets have already been found around M, K, G and F class stars which make up 99.1% of all stars. It's calculated that the number of planets inside the habitable zone for us (so excluding moons and other planets which say liquid methane) is 22% so within our galaxy that means around 80 billion. I've seen no statistical figures for the chances of life in habitable planets but Hawking suggests that advanced life only developed in 1/14th of the time available so if that is representative then 7% of that 80 billion could have advanced life so about 5.6 billion alien species potentially.
Original post by rakusmaximus
Pluto isn't considered a planet anymore because it too small, Jupiter has no surface to land on but it's still a planet...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It is only recently somewhere they considered Pluto not to be a planet. Same way one day they also might come to a conclusion that even Jupiter is not a planet. Science keeps discovering the more and more inventions are growing and developing.
Original post by rakusmaximus
I typed it as a simile.
I get so freaked out by thinking about the universe. Why are we here, where did it all begin?
Original post by kers123
It is only recently somewhere they considered Pluto not to be a planet. Same way one day they also might come to a conclusion that even Jupiter is not a planet. Science keeps discovering the more and more inventions are growing and developing.
No.
They excluded Pluto because they started finding loads of planetoids (planets that had failed to keep their atmosphere) and the choice was to either include these as planets or exclude Pluto and declare them planetoids. Jupiter is most definitely a planet and always will be.
Original post by Rakas21
No.
They excluded Pluto because they started finding loads of planetoids (planets that had failed to keep their atmosphere) and the choice was to either include these as planets or exclude Pluto and declare them planetoids. Jupiter is most definitely a planet and always will be.
They excluded Pluto because they started finding loads of planetoids (planets that had failed to keep their atmosphere) and the choice was to either include these as planets or exclude Pluto and declare them planetoids. Jupiter is most definitely a planet and always will be.
Provide evidence from any source.
We haven't yet found any proof, but given the size of the universe, the probability of there being habited planets with intelligent life perhaps more advanced than us is virtually 100%.
Original post by kers123
Provide evidence from any source.
Original post by Rakas21
The picture does not mention of planets or planetoids.
Original post by kers123
The picture does not mention of planets or planetoids.
A planetoid is another name for trans-neptunium object.
Have a google and read about them.
Original post by Rakas21
A planetoid is another name for trans-neptunium object.
Have a google and read about them.
Have a google and read about them.
Yes maybe.
Original post by kers123
I typed it as a simile.
In what way is it LIKE a gaseous globe then?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Do aliens exist and have we been visited?
- Tantalising signs of life (biosignatures) on a distant exoplanet.
- Exploring My Passion for Environmental Conservation
- Why are we looking for life on Mars??
- Would you end all human life instantly if you could?
- TSR Agnostic Society.
- What is the thing you love most about Space?
- EPQ feedback
- What are my chances of an economics acceptance?
- There is no Fermi Paradox.
- What needs prioritising in my life right now?
- Favourite nature documentary
- seeing pretty boys makes me feel depressed
- Reincarnation is inevitable and infinite
- Birmingham vs Belfast. Which university is better to learn creative writing?
- english lit paragraph !!
- how do i cope with being a virgin for my whole life
- Bullying
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Inventions
- Reincarnation?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UKTrending
Last reply 4 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UK
