PlanetQuest

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">Yes, I did watch Nova Origins and I will be watching it many more times- what did you think of the program?</font><br /><br />Actually the program answered alot of the questions I had about modern cosmology. I wish someone would realize that there is large market, and viewing audience of TV viewers who are fascinated with space exploration. I hope some producer at PBS is trying to make a series out of this NOVA special.<br /><br />The one aspect of Origins that I had not realized was; how much research has been completed on the makeup of our universe. According to the latest WMAP surveys; and COBE project, in fact show that the soup that make up the building blocks of life as we know it are more prevailent then previously thought. Which means that possiblity of intelligence in our universe across trillions of galaxies are infinite. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[newtonian]

marcel_leonard - Whoa!<br /><br />Grab hold of those reins!<br /><br />Before jumping to intelligent life you need to understand the vast difference between amino acids, which were found, and life.<br /><br />The broadcast also noted that.<br /><br />Did you notice that they referenced Drake's equation?<br /><br />And they noted the problem - it is hard to put actual numbers to that equation.<br /><br />Infinite is definitely not the probability.<br /><br />There is an upper limit to how many chemical reactions that could have occurred in our universe since our universe began.<br /><br />Do you remember my theory?<br /><br />Alas, it was a thread on the old SDC which crashed.<br /><br />Two of the many things I got from the broadcast were:<br /><br />1. Our universe is more fine tuned for life than we thought.<br /><br />2. The variety of life forms on earth, notably those deep in earth's crust from ancient times, is far greater than we thought.

 

[marcel_leonard]

The drake eq. applies to our galaxy; on the other hand the WMAP survey is the visible universe as seen through the celestrial sphere. This survey shows the abundence of the ingredience for life as we know it. If you look at this study in this context; although intelligence in our milky way may be rare, it shows that the chances for intelligent life throughout the universe is much greater when you consider the trillions of galaxies spread out the survey. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[newtonian]

The drake equation should also apply to our universe - or at least the portion that lies within our visibility horizon.<br /><br />My theory, which I should post for further critique, calculates an upper limit of chemical reaction products in our universe since our universe began as being 10^122.<br /><br />That is likely many powers of 10 above a more realistic estimate- but I was making sure it was absolutely the upper limit.<br /><br />Now, most people find it equally difficult to conceive of that large of a number as to conceive of infinity.<br /><br />Nevertheless, even the probability of a statistical protein is so low that it approaches this upper limit!

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">The drake equation should also apply to our universe - or at least the portion that lies within our visibility horizon. <br /></font><br /><br />The Drake Eq. is just an intelligent guess; an orbitary number if you will. It really should'nt really be treated as a real functional equation... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[craigmac]

<i>The drake equation should also apply to our universe - or at least the portion that lies within our visibility horizon. <br /></i><br /><br />How accurate is the Drake Equation?

 

[fatjoe]

<i>The drake equation should also apply to our universe - or at least the portion that lies within our visibility horizon. <br /></i><br /><br />The Drake Equation was calculated using the milky way, and not the universe as the model...

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">Given the complexity of life forms, of which the multicellulars forms have going on well OVER 10 exp. to the 10exp 6 different kinds of chemical reactions ongoing, that kind of complexity is impossible for the human mind to fathom.</font><br /><br />This is what the goal of the WMAP, and COBE surveys where all about... <br /><br /><font color="orange">The one aspect of Origins that I had not realized was; how much research has been completed on the makeup of our universe. According to the latest WMAP surveys; and COBE project, in fact show that the soup that make up the building blocks of life as we know it are more prevailent then previously thought. Which means that possiblity of intelligence in our universe across trillions of galaxies are infinite. </font>/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[fatjoe]

<font color="red">However, if it turns out to be valid for the Milky Way, it will likely apply to the universe as a whole, because we have no reason to believe our galaxy is special.</font><br /><br />The universe is larger than anything we as humans can imagine. To think that our galaxy is the same as all other groups is as simplistic as thinking that all terrestrial planets should resemble earth.

 

[fatjoe]

<font color="red">I think you know what I mean. If the Drake Equasion is valid for the Milky Way, it should be valid for every other galaxy similar to the Milky Way, in terms of the number of intelligent races it supports. </font><br /><br />Once again the Drake Equation is just an arbitrary number, w/ no real functional equation proof. As for the universe it is larger than anyone can imagine w/ unlimited variation. We know less then you think when it comes to our own Milky Way. For example why doesn't Kepler's Law apply to the spiral of our galaxy w/ respect to the center?<br /><br />This is why physicist speak of Dark Energy/Dark Matter [The Dark = ?]. 99% of our visible universe is still unknown.

 

[fatjoe]

Just because some of other galaxies are spiral in shape like ours and show some of the same spectography; as are own Milky Way, doesn't necessarily mean they share the same atributes as we do.<br /><br />In this sense all galaxies are unique, and it is insane to think that all galaxies follow the specifications of the Drake Eq. In fact we haven't even come up w/ a valid definition; of what consist of habitable condition for life to develope, or identified what are the habitable zone for that matter...

 

[newtonian]

You all & Marcel - Compare my theory - I think it is better.<br /><br />It can be scaled down to include only the Milky Way- the mass will be lower, as will the age or time allowed. Therefore the upper limit will be much lower.<br /><br /><font color="red">See my theory.[red/]</font>

 

[newtonian]

stevehw33 - Now, if you concentrate on similarities, you will find them.<br /><br />If you concentrate on differences, you will also find them.<br /><br />Recently a collision of superclusters was observed, with many galaxies involved. If they were similar before, the changes they undergo in collisions and mergers will change that.<br /><br />And it is not just the present state of a galaxy, which is quite variable in content, age, rotation rate, magnetic fields, etc., which is involved.<br /><br />It is also the origin, history and future which is involved.<br /><br />And stars are also extremely variable- note the Cepheid variable thread (pun intended). <br /><br />And so are planets and solar systems extremely variable.<br /><br />BTW- where did you get 1 trillion galaxies? I had read estimates between 100 billion and 200 billion. I am not disagreeing on that, just curious.<br /><br />I will post more detail on differences later.

 

[newtonian]

Marcel and Steve- Consider some of these fine tuned factors for life on planet earth:<br /><br />"The Earth-Was It "Founded" by Chance?<br /><br />TO AVOID extremes of temperature, the earth must orbit at the correct distance from the sun. In other solar systems, planets have been detected that orbit sunlike stars and are considered to be in the 'habitable zone'-that is, they are capable of sustaining liquid water. But even these so-called habitable planets may still not be suitable for human life. They must also rotate at the right speed and be the right size.<br /><br />If the earth were slightly smaller and lighter than it is, the force of gravity would be weaker and much of the earth's precious atmosphere would have escaped into space. This can be seen in the case of the moon and the two planets Mercury and Mars. Being smaller and weighing less than the earth, they have little or no atmosphere. But what if the earth were slightly bigger and heavier than it is?<br /><br />Then the earth's gravitation would be stronger, and light gases, such as hydrogen and helium, would take longer to escape from the atmosphere. "More importantly," explains the science textbook Environment of Life, "the delicate balance between the gases of the atmosphere would be upset."<br /><br />Or consider just oxygen, which fuels combustion. If its level were to increase by 1 percent, forest fires would break out more frequently. On the other hand, if the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide kept increasing, we would suffer the consequences of an overheated earth.<br /><br />Earth's Orbit<br /><br />Another ideal feature is the shape of earth's orbit. If the orbit were more elliptic, we would suffer unbearable extremes of temperature. Instead, the earth has a nearly circular orbit. Of course, the situation would change if a giant planet like Jupiter were to pass nearby. In recent years scientists have uncovered evidence that some stars have large Jupiterlike planets orbiting very close to them. Many of these Ju

 

[alokmohan]

Goldilocks planet.

 

[newtonian]

alokmohan-- Come again? You mean our earth seems too good to be true? Or.....?

 

[fatjoe]

<font color="red">If the earth were slightly smaller and lighter than it is, the force of gravity would be weaker and much of the earth's precious atmosphere would have escaped into space. This can be seen in the case of the moon and the two planets Mercury and Mars. Being smaller and weighing less than the earth, they have little or no atmosphere. But what if the earth were slightly bigger and heavier than it is? <br /><br />Then the earth's gravitation would be stronger, and light gases, such as hydrogen and helium, would take longer to escape from the atmosphere. "More importantly," explains the science textbook Environment of Life, "the delicate balance between the gases of the atmosphere would be upset."</font><br /><br />Although mass/ gravity are just a few of the factors that allowed life as we know it; to develope here on earth. Doesn't mean these are the factors that dictate the parameters for the incarnation of life through out the universe.<br /><br />The fact of the matter is; we still don't truely know what constitutes life....

 

[newtonian]

FatJoe - Yes, I was more referring to life as we know it, and even more so human life.<br /><br />Are prions alive? Or are they simply dangerous proteins?<br /><br />However, I would assume planet quest would also include planets we could survive on.<br /><br />In that case, my post is more important.<br /><br />Consider, for example, what would happen if our earth had a slower rotation speed, though not as slow as Venus.<br /><br />Say 60 days, so that our night was 30 days long.<br /><br />Now consider that land areas dropped 1 degree per hour, which is common in Continental climates at night.<br /><br />That would be down 24 degrees per day for 30 days.<br /><br />Assume a mean of 50 degrees, a typical temperate climate annual mean.<br />That's down 720 degrees, or to about 670 below zero at night.<br /><br />During the day we would approach the temperature of the surface of Venus, or 770 degrees to be exact.<br /><br />Not many life forms would survive that!<br /><br />Of course, that would be extreme - clearly earth's oceans would modify that. <br /><br />I suspect we would only go up to about 350 degrees - a good oven temperature. The oceans would boil on the surface, but deep ocean levels would still be cold, so under ocean life would survive.<br /><br />At night, the oceans would freeze over and be covered with snow. I suspect that global winds would limit the low temperature to about - 250 degrees F.<br /><br />The most moderate climate would be at the poles where it would actually be similar to today!<br /><br />Now, picture sunrise! You would hear it coming as huge ice sheets over the ocean would start cracking, and melting. And floods over land areas as perhaps one hundred feet of snow starts to melt!<br /><br />Perhaps worse would be sunset.<br /><br />Huge ice sheets would flow towards the lower sea level of the boiling oceans! <br />Well, I chose a much slower rotation rate. <br /><br />But even if our nights were only 48 hours long, we would still be in trouble as frosts wo

 

[marcel_leonard]

I have to say you have a very vivid imagination. The reality is that a majority of the off-world environments which we will encounter in the furture will probably be quite hostile.<br /><br />Not until we learn how to traverse the galactic distances between us and another earthlike planet; were we could make an easier transition. In the mean time we will have to learn how to deal w/ the harsh realities of our current solar system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[fatjoe]

That's the traditional BIO 101 answer for what constitutes life, but as far as a defined universal design pattern w/ specificatoions, or origin for that matter the jury is still out...

 

[newtonian]

Fatjoe - Well, according to your definition, angels would not be alive since they do not reproduce - to my knowledge anyway. They could create life, however, but not specifically their own form of life. Some of the forms of life they create could reproduce.<br /><br />In other words, I agree with you. The definition of life generally agreed upon, which is the one Steve clearly favors, is molded by what we observe on earth - i.e. life as we know it.<br /><br />Clearly, energy based life is not included nor is it being looked for. And we have further restrictions on the specific type of matter based life being looked for.<br /><br />That being said - yes I do have quite an imagination and I agree that most planets would be hostile to human life, or the more common types of 'higher' 'intelligent' life we have observed on earth (e.g. Dolphins, Chimps, Cats, <br />Dogs, etc.).<br /><br />BTW- Steve generally treats anyone he disagrees with that way. <br /><br />BTW #2- What did you think of my 'imaginative' description of a slower rotation earth - compare earth-like planet?<br /><br />I might add that there are many other factors I did not factor in. Global winds including incredibly strong sea and land breeze cycles, would certainly reduce those extremes in temperature.<br /><br />Extremes in wind would actually be likely.<br /><br />There would also be clouds near the terminator area which would lower the solar radiation reaching the surface - and likely extreme precipitation. <br /><br />You all - has anyone done computer modelling simulating longer rotation periods for earth?<br /><br />How many billions of years from now would our rotation slow to 25 hours - assuming current changes due to interaction primarily with the moon?

 

[marcel_leonard]

I like your comments however your a bit long winded when it comes to your Q&A's; which makes it difficult for anyone to respond to your original comment. Having said that I try not to use religious icons to make my point. I find it discourages those who don't share your beliefs to avoid comment.<br /><br />As for the definition of the parameters/origins of life; I challenge anyone to research any biology; or scientific text ,and see if they can come up w/ a satisfactory answer? The bottomline is that people like Steve are unwilling to admitt that there are things they can't not yet scientifically explain. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[newtonian]

marcel_leonard - Sorry about that and you are correct.<br /><br />Thank you, though.<br /><br />Actually, in another thread Steve argues we cannot know many things - I really haven't figured out where he is coming from - so to speak.<br />He does make many good posts, however.....<br /><br />The point is that the definition of life is variable according to who you ask.<br /><br />Often, astronomers qualify with the statement: "life as we know it." Many astronomers consider it tenable to believe there is life out there which is very different from life as we know it.<br /><br />I concur, albeit I have some specific reasons which they may or may not share- as per my long-winded post.<br /><br />Steve's definition of life is a standard one- many use it, it has some value certainly.<br />Many believe reproduction can only refer to creation of the same kind of life - of course, the definition of "kind" can vary!<br /><br />I was simply indicating that creation of a different form of life by intelligent life forms having that ability would bridge a gap in two variant definitions of life.<br /><br />To me an sentient form which is intelligent would qualify as life whether said individual could actually reproduce or not.<br /><br />Otherwise, a sterile human would no longer be alive! <br />

 

[newtonian]

marcel_leonard- Here are a few identifying marks of life in my opinion:<br /><br />1. Containing aperiodic sequences. Reason: Only very limited information can be stored and passed on in a totally periodic system.<br /><br />aperiodic: non repeating<br /><br />periodic: repeating.<br /><br />Example: Growing crystals are periodic. Crystals are not alive.<br />DNA is a non-repeating (aperiodic molecule) required for life as we know it (or, at least, the similar RNA molecule template).<br />2. Containing considerable information, far beyond the capacity of a periodic system.<br /><br />That is: INFORMATIONAL NOT STATISTICAL.<br /><br />For example, while all proteins are aperiodic, the proteins most useful to life are informational while most statistical proteins are at least useless to life if not destructive to life processes.<br /><br />Illustration: Most posts on SDC are informational - perhaps all posts on SDC are informational. <br /><br />While the posts themselves are not alive, they are strong evidence for life by cause and effect.<br />The latter then goes further to distinguish intelligent life from non-intelligent life - though this is often a matter of degree.<br /><br />The degree is illustrated by the amount of information contained in Chimp posts.<br /><br />BTW- do we have Chimp members?<br />

 

[marcel_leonard]

I agree with that. I also feel that the biggest question that we will ever face; is not the parameters of our physical universe, or if we will ever find out the origins of life in said plane. The real question; and the "final frontier" in my opinion is the mind itself, or better yet where did intelligence originate from? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>