What is Digg?58 Comments
- Temlakos, on 07/08/2009, -1/+26Read this article carefully. When you scroll down, the author throws cold water on this notion of "inorganic extraterrestrial life."
- thcobbs, on 07/08/2009, -0/+24Wait... who didn't already believe that life could be non-carbon based?
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -4/+26Life was created when his noodly appendage gave us life.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 'ARRRRGH!" " - Piraticus 13:7
What??? Who are you to tell me my story is crazy, zombie Jesus!?? - dazparkour, on 07/08/2009, -1/+16Star Trek already did crystal based life.
- realeskimopimp, on 07/08/2009, -1/+12Key from the article: The answer is no
"While there's no convincing argument restricting life to "gooey squidgy stuff", we're afraid this result has much more to do with advertising than actual science. The core of their argument appears to be that certain helical structures which form in a plasma resemble the helices of DNA - anyone familiar with magnetic fields, or indeed the very idea of "one thing looking like another thing", will realize that a helical shape does not a lifeform make. It's an excellent attempt to garner attention for a moderately interesting (if extremely specific) set of calculations, but that's all." - syxxness, on 07/08/2009, -2/+13"anyone familiar with magnetic fields, or indeed the very idea of "one thing looking like another thing", will realize that a helical shape does not a lifeform make."
Who hired yoda to write this article? - PizzaEagle, on 07/08/2009, -0/+8Organic, in chemistry-speak, means carbon based.
- Hrodrik, on 07/08/2009, -1/+9"Extraterrestrial life may not be carbon-based at all"
No *****, Sherlock. This notion has been known for many years. - MrTankJump, on 07/08/2009, -0/+8Organic just means a substance that is made up of carbon.
"relating or belonging to the class of chemical compounds having a carbon basis; "hydrocarbons are organic compounds" " ;www.google.com, define:organic - danwallace, on 07/08/2009, -0/+7Well, no, that isn't it. The author explains that, what they're claiming to be "self-replication" isn't self-replication at all. RTFA.
- dazparkour, on 07/08/2009, -2/+8Temlakos
A male who joined Digg on July 18th, 2006
And you still think people read the articles? - Axeman20, on 07/08/2009, -1/+7The universe is pretty big so non-carbon based life forms are sure to happen...
- wricketts, on 07/08/2009, -1/+7bunk article. it's not real science
- takamalak, on 07/08/2009, -2/+8monkeysmasher, so that big oak tree in my yard is not alive?
- Gumphlumph, on 07/08/2009, -0/+6The guy need to learn how to read properly. read the full article (link at the bottom of the page).
Abstract. Complex plasmas may naturally self-organize themselves into stable interacting helical structures that exhibit features normally attributed to organic living matter. The self-organization is based on non-trivial physical mechanisms of plasma interactions involving over-screening of plasma polarization. As a result, each helical string composed of solid microparticles is topologically and dynamically controlled by plasma fluxes leading to particle charging and over-screening, the latter providing attraction even among helical strings of the same charge sign. These interacting complex structures exhibit thermodynamic and evolutionary features thought to be peculiar only to living matter such as bifurcations that serve as `memory marks', self-duplication, metabolic rates in a thermodynamically open system, and non-Hamiltonian dynamics. We examine the salient features of this new complex `state of soft matter' in light of the autonomy, evolution, progenity and autopoiesis principles used to define life. It is concluded that complex self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter that may exist in space provided certain conditions allow them to evolve naturally. - ZeroCubed, on 07/08/2009, -0/+5dazparkour
A person who joined Digg on January 4th, 2007
And you still think people give a damn? - skidork, on 07/08/2009, -0/+5Many things aren't self conscious, but we consider them alive. There are many inorganic things in our body, like Mg 2+ ions that aid in muscle movement, etc. So a living thing can have inorganic components.
- sHockz, on 07/08/2009, -1/+5omg....all life might not be carbon based?!?!?!?!?! WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT!!!!?!?!!?
/s - Mujokan, on 07/08/2009, -1/+4The Daily Galaxy: Destroying the credibility of science one exaggeration at a time.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 07/08/2009, -1/+4NO KILL I
- takamalak, on 07/08/2009, -0/+3Oh, you stupid little man. Tree's don't "breathe". Breathing is the process of taking air in through the lungs. Animals breathe. Plants respire. Yes they are synonyms, but breathing applies only to animals while respiring applies to both, technically.
And they don't "poop" through the roots either. What are you, 6 years old? The waste from photosynthesis is oxygen and it leaves through the stomata, the same way the CO2 comes in.
Death is not a requirement of life. That is just ***** retarded.
Had you used grown up words like metabolism, reproduction, growth / adaptation, and response to stimuli then you wouldn't look so foolish. - RGB0099CC, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2It could even be a boat!
- takamalak, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2Oh yeah, well I'm president of ***** Sweden!
- ScottoGato, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2I am going to use this to make the world's greatest meth.
- bobbi21, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2Bad title since the entire article gives a pretty firm NO to the question.
- thcobbs, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2At least someone got it....
Sheesh, you people call yourselves geeks! - nichesiteexpert, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2This article is crap. Instead of presenting the facts and letting the reader draw their own conclusions, the author gives us his own - rather unscientific and limited - opinion of this study, and tries his best to make the original authors look like fools, with no scientific facts of his own to back up his opinion - thus making himself look like an ass in the process. This kind of reporting is unfit for a scientific news site, and makes DailyGalaxy look bad. They really should quit using college kids to write their stories.
- MacEnvy, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3No, not at all. Diatoms can have silicate skeletal structures, but they are not considered silicon-based lifeforms. Their basic life functions rely on the same carbon-based molecules that ours do.
- ocean17, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3Does that mean the 'Andromedra Strain' will be remade (again) properly this time?
- leif777, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2I think someone read 'The Golden Compass' to many times.
- thcobbs, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2And Silica-Based.
- folkish, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1The key is, "It is concluded that complex self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter that may exist in space provided certain conditions allow them to evolve naturally."
but I guess if the journalist writes like Yoda "a helical shape does not a lifeform make" then I guess we should believe him. - neoq36, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2Kryptonian Technology???
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -2/+3i've known about this since the 1980's
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z263/toylad/Com ... - bluelightnin90, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2FTA "The other half of the inorganic life argument is that the helices "self-replicate" - specifically, they'll "replicate" if another suitable site for the formation of a helix is right next to an existing helix. You might notice that that isn't self-replication. It's just making another helix, so the whole things like claiming clouds are water-based lifeforms because once one appears you often get a bunch more."
This is very possible how early life on earth replicated. I don't know if that when these helices replicate, they are producing exact copies of each other. But if they are, then that is exactly what life does. Which is unlike clouds that replicate, but are very different from one another. Otherwise, how would we have so much fun staring at the clouds and making out mickey mouse or donald duck? - skidork, on 07/08/2009, -3/+4Heck, there are even aliens here on earth: diatoms made of sillica (glass).
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -0/+1What about this ? Make Your Extraterrestrial Passport.Total Access on every planet.The Future is here. http://myetpass.com/
- caramba421, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1If there is even the remotest possiblity of it occurring, as the area surveyed looking for it approaches infinity, the odds of finding it approach 1.
- leif777, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2boobs?
- Arghblarg, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1http://www.nokilli.com/
- RGB0099CC, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1Maybe it seems like a common fact or theory to you, but I seriously doubt that it is as widely accepted as you seem to make it.
- riotcarrot, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1headline is pretty misleading. did you actually read the article?
- dazparkour, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2+1
- MacEnvy, on 07/09/2009, -1/+2Well you either implied that they were inorganic (which is what we're talking about here), or your comment is a complete non-sequitor. Take your pick.
- skidork, on 07/09/2009, -1/+2I implied that there are life forms on earth which are themselves partly inorganic, which means it's not far-fetched to assume that there are other planets on which the same thing may occur, if not to a higher degree.
- noahhoward, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1He makes himself look like an ass who is right. He explains why they're wrong, there's no science needed.
It's simple, their 'evidence' for the claim was [1] It is helical and so is DNA [2] They self-replicate.
The rebuttal here, no science needed is [1] Sharing a shape is not evidence of life [2] Forming next to each other is not the same thing as self replicating.
End of story. - jonathan102, on 07/08/2009, -2/+2wo. Transformers!
in all seriousness, it would be idiotic to think extraterrestrial life would definitely be carbon based. I mean the universe is so big, literally ANYTHING can happen. -
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 