Life on other planets

I think you are right on that one !!   And using that same good logic,  do you still think we are likely the only advanced species in the universe -->  You just saw how silly our logic can get.   Of course your saying yes to that question  is still another example of silly logic.   If it is still yes,  you may not understand the difference between one earth and 10**24 of them.  And there is still another example, see how silly my logic is.  Which now means 3 out of 3 of us isn't advanced.  So we don't even need the other earths to make the point, we arn't advanced.

On the contrary, I am being open-minded on that there is life on other planets. It will be very close-minded if you believe we are the only living beings in the entire universe. It makes you very naive. So, you believe that the entire universe had no organic molecules, except on Earth?? If so, scientists can prove you totally dead wrong. There have been organic molecules in the universe. Some have been found in our solar system. So, what makes you think we are the only living creatures in the universe?? Like I said, it would be a total waste of space, just with stars, gas, and dust. I know for a fact we are not the only living creatures in the universe, but I cannot prove it.

opiejames;  please do not feel bad or wrong.  The paper you pointed out was written by people that feel the same way you do.  Almost an infinite number of people will say GOD created the earth for us.  But to assume HE loves ME more than a grain of sand or drop of water is not right.   Oh, cause I have a soul ?   Poor worm or ant doesn't have a soul,  what was GOD thinking ?  The answer you need is in the question;  WHY IS THERE A UNIVERSE ?  It is unlikely HE was worried about the grain of sand .

I can't express certainty on the existence of life elsewhere. However, I can show that if the Universe is infinite, the probability that there are an infinite number of examples of abiogenesis equals one (with very mild assumptions).

viettrekkie20 , it seems to me that if you say nothing will change your mind about any topic that means you have closed your mind about alternatives, thus you are close minded.  It doesn't matter the topic. 

That's not to say being close minded is always bad.  Humans cannot rethink everything all the time.  Nevertheless, to say you will never change and then to say you are open minded seems to be a contrast to me.  If I am wrong, tell me where my logic is incorrect.  I remain open-minded on this issue.

Agreed.

Explain to me how you came to a conclusion that the universe is all wasted space and that our planet is the only one with life on it. I would love to know what your "thinking" is on that. So, what you are saying is that the universe was nothing and is nothing, right?? After all, we are insignificant in terms of the universe.

opiejames; you are indeed open minded on being open minded.  And I would think that you would therefore be open minded else where.  Can you give us an example relative to the universe ?

OK RPaul, here is just a few of the reasons I feel we are alone.  This comes from my research on the matter, not my own thnking.

1.  The planet's would have to be 100% inside the the's suns habitable zone.  Jus a few million kilometers closer or farther away from our sun would prevent life on this planet.

2. The planets solar system wold have to be within it's galactic habitable zone.  Too close the radiation would prevent life, too far away the planet wouldn't get the metals needed for life.

3. It would probably have to be a spiral galaxy to allow for #2 to be possible.

4. I do not believe a red dwarf planet cound sustain life advanced life (defined as a species capable of developing a telephone).  I am aware this opinion is not shared by all.  I can get into details here if desired. 

5. The planet would have to be around a third generation star and have two different types of supernovas exploding near enough for the planet to get the correct materials when the planet is forming.

6. To planet would need to have tetonic activity

7. It would need to sustain water for billions of years.  Our planet can, but the reason is that the water lost by evaporation into space every year is replaced by comets.

8. The planet would need to be about our size (gravity)

9. Not around a binary star system

10.  A moon like ours - Our moon didn't form naturally, but rathr about 80 million years after the planet formed.  Moons that form naturally are too small.

This is just a few, I will add much more if desired, but hopefully you get the reason for my opinion.

Good job. I went out for a beer and took a young lady along.  She read your comments before we left, and she agrees with you, in general I do too.  There still are a lot of planets though.  Now , how smart is this one,  because you are judging by us.  While our eniveriment is limited, ours may not produce the smart beings.  Those would need an envirement where thinking is required the most.  That still leaves about 10**16 planets, half better in produing smarter beings than us.  If you want to know how dumb we are,  NOT ONE SINGLE elementry theory in physics is correct.  See how easy it would be to be smarter.   Lets try that theory, is General Relativity correct ?

Ok, I can disprove you wrong on several points there.

On your #1 point, there are thousands of planets that are in the habitable zone. Scientists have discovered planets in the "Goldilock" zone.

On your #2 point, again, there are thousands of planets that are in the galactic habitable zone.

On your #3 point, why does it have to be a spiral galaxy?? What about other galaxies like the elliptical galaxies, dwarf galaxies, and other non-spiral galaxies??

On your #4 point, planets cannot be red dwarf. Only a star can be a red dwarf. Life has a much better chance of surviving for billions of years on a planet that is orbiting a red dwarf because the red dwarf lives for many billions of years.

On your #5 point, you are wrong again. Scientists have discovered planets around first generation stars, which composed of only hydrogen and helium. Ok, true, we are not chatting about planets with life, but they were formed around one of the oldest stars in the universe, HIP 11952. It has two Jupiter-sized planets around it. The star has very little heavy metals, thus the planets have very little heavy metals in them.

On your #6 point, you may be right.

On your #7 point, no, the planet does not necessarily need to have water, but it does need some form of liquid for its inhabitants to survive. You are discussing life as carbon based. There could be a possibility of silicone based life also or some other form of life. For example, the Tholians in Star Trek. They are a lifeform that does not need water to survive or any kind of liquids as far as we know it. They probably have a kind of liquid that can be in liquid state at very high temperatures.

On your #8 point, that is not necessarily true either. There could be gas giants that have life on them also. The inhabitants would be flying creatures that are able to sustain flight all the time.

On your #9 point, Proxima Centuri is proof that your thinking is wrong. There is a planet that has been discovered orbiting around that star. Ok, it is not a binary system, but a triple-star system. In Star Wars, Tatooine was orbiting a binary star system and it had life on it.

On your #10 point, scientists have said that a planet does not need a moon to have life on it. It may not be the kind of life we know it, but life would definitely exist.

Another point to make is that our laws and theories of physics can be disproved, ie, em drive. If that drive could exist, it would defy all our laws of physics and we would have to rewrite our laws of physics.

One at a time please.  1.  The planet's would have to be 100% inside the the's suns habitable zone.  Jus a few million kilometers closer or farther away from our sun would prevent life on this planet.

If you are out of the zone, your out.  can't live out side.   1 inch out side is still out side.  The problem is what life,  ours is one type , earth has 10**18 types.  But there may be in the universe 10**38  types, each with a different zones.  That depends on what you cansider "life".   But we want them to "think".  Atleast , better than us.

As for the "Goldilock zone," I believe that there could be living creatures that can actually live outside the zone. After all, in Star Trek, the Tholians can live on planets like Venus because they thrive on temperatures that are 400 degrees Fahrenheit. Venus is only a little more than twice as hot so it would be an ideal place for the Tholians. The reverse can be said for the cold. There could be creatures that could survive -200 degrees Fahrenheit. For them, that could be their summertime. -400 Fahrenheit could be their wintertime. Again, in Star Trek: Enterprise, there was a rogue planet that had life on it. So, we need to expand our definition of what life really is.

vietrekkie20, While we might all agree Star Trek is fun, I don't believe these creatures are possible.  I doubt it would be possible for any creature to live in an environment without water or rainfall.  Certainly in an environment you describe all the water would evaporate. 

In my research I also found a PhD level biologist who said any extraterrestrial life form would have to be carbon based.  Other candidate (there are only a few others) just wouldn't bond near as well as carbon does.  

Hi viettrekkie, here is your post #33 with my comments

Ok, I can disprove you wrong on several points there.

On your #1 point, there are thousands of planets that are in the habitable zone. Scientists have discovered planets in the "Goldilock" zone.  Agreed, this just eliminates most planets

On your #2 point, again, there are thousands of planets that are in the galactic habitable zone. Agreed, this just eliminates most of the remaining planets

On your #3 point, why does it have to be a spiral galaxy?? What about other galaxies like the elliptical galaxies, dwarf galaxies, and other non-spiral galaxies?? Most other galaxies would have too much radiation to allow life to form.  Also I didn't mention before because it's a little complicated to explain, but our Local Group has an unusually low number of big galaxies in it.  If it was like most Galaxy groups, life would be impossible also because of radiation.

On your #4 point, planets cannot be red dwarf. Only a star can be a red dwarf. Life has a much better chance of surviving for billions of years on a planet that is orbiting a red dwarf because the red dwarf lives for many billions of years.  OK I fat fingered the point.  You are correct about the sun lasting longer.  However, the problem with a planet around a red dwarf is that the same side would always face the planet.  This is a big problem for life (bacteria could survive, however).  I can go into detail here, but it would take a lot of typing.

On your #5 point, you are wrong again. Scientists have discovered planets around first generation stars, which composed of only hydrogen and helium. Ok, true, we are not chatting about planets with life, but they were formed around one of the oldest stars in the universe, HIP 11952. It has two Jupiter-sized planets around it. The star has very little heavy metals, thus the planets have very little heavy metals in them.  Huh, I didn't say they didn't have planets, all I said was they wouldn't have life because there was not enough metals in them.  I think we agree here.

On your #6 point, you may be right.

On your #7 point, no, the planet does not necessarily need to have water, but it does need some form of liquid for its inhabitants to survive. You are discussing life as carbon based. There could be a possibility of silicone based life also or some other form of life. For example, the Tholians in Star Trek. They are a lifeform that does not need water to survive or any kind of liquids as far as we know it. They probably have a kind of liquid that can be in liquid state at very high temperatures. My research suggests that any non-carbon life is unlikely because of the way it bonds.  I would be very interested in any PhD level biologists who disagrees.  I just haven't found any.  I have found them that agree though.

On your #8 point, that is not necessarily true either. There could be gas giants that have life on them also. The inhabitants would be flying creatures that are able to sustain flight all the time.  Maybe, but I have a hard time imagining a food source and a water source. 

On your #9 point, Proxima Centuri is proof that your thinking is wrong. There is a planet that has been discovered orbiting around that star. Ok, it is not a binary system, but a triple-star system. In Star Wars, Tatooine was orbiting a binary star system and it had life on it.  Yes, I am aware that you can work the physics out that planets can orbit binary or triple star systems.  The issue is can life live on those planets.  I just believe it would be hard for such an orbit to remain 100% of the time in the habitable zone.

On your #10 point, scientists have said that a planet does not need a moon to have life on it. It may not be the kind of life we know it, but life would definitely exist.  True, but we are talking about advanced life.  One of the many problems of not having a moon would be the planets rotation speed.  When the earth formed it had a 6 hour day.  The gravity of the moon has gradually slowed it down to 24 hours.  An fun, interesting side note is that when dinosaurs roamed the earth the day was 22 hours long.  This made it very windy.  A pterodactyl was so big it would need a 30 mph wind to take off.  Therefore, it couldn't exist today.  There are other reasons too, like that planet wouldn't have a tide, etc. 

Thank you for posting though.  It allowed me to elaborate further in why I think the way I do.  I have done research, but I am willing to change my mind if the further research justifies it, so please respond.

ok, that is your opinion since we have not discovered ALL of the entire universe. We have only discovered at most 10% of the entire universe. I believe that life can exist in conditions where there is no water. It would not be carbon based, but most probably silicone based life. We have not discovered any silicone life yet. What people need to do is to think outside of the box and not inside the box. As I have discovered, anything is possible, even the impossible.

On your replies to my points, I agree with the first two.

On my #3 point with your reply. Well, those galaxies may also not have so much radiation so life can exist on planets in the non-spiral galaxies. Plus, the bigger galaxies have a lot more metals than our own Milky Way Galaxy, which makes them have more of a chance to have life on planets.

On my #4 point with your reply, no, not necessarily. The planet could rotate around its axis, just like our planet does. The red dwarves are more likely to have planets with life on them than other stars because of their lifespan. Like I said, they can last for billions of years.

On my #5 point with your reply, ok, you are right that the planets around the first generation stars most probably will not have life on them because of the lack of metals needed to create life.

On my #6 point with your reply. How come you said what I said?? LOL

On my #7 point with your reply, there are scientists who do believe that there is a possibility of life that are not carbon-based. There could be lifeforms that are silicone based. Stephen Hawkins is one of those scientists who believe in that, I believe.

On my #8 point with your reply. Again, you need to think outside of the box. Water is not necessary for some lifeforms. They might have ammonia as their "water." Maybe, they breathe in methane as their air and oxygen is very poisonous to them. (Side note: I once had a dream in which I was suffocating because I was in an oxygen atmosphere. Methane was the air that I was breathing and needed that gas to survive.

On my #9 point with your reply. Well, yes, life can live on the planets with binary or more stars in them as long as the distance between the stars are far enough.

On my #10 point with your reply. You mean chatting!! LOL Well, a planet, around a red dwarf, could have no moons and sustain life. Its rotation could be 24 hours long after billions of years if its rotation was way too fast for life. So, a planet without a moon can sustain life on it. Oh, I didn't know that about the rotation of the Earth during the dinosaurs. Well, not true. All planets have tides in some form or another because of the gravity of the star. The tides may not be as great as if the planet has a moon, but it would still have tides, nonetheless.