What is Digg?143 Comments
- fxu1989, on 11/20/2008, -4/+48How come they say a planet might not hold life because of the temperatures?
Is that conclusion based on our body, that they'll look just like us? Maybe an alien's body is able to withstand the heat or cold far more than our bodies could. - inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+39I can't wait until we're finally able to send a probe to a world orbiting another star. It probably won't happen within my lifetime, but that'll still be a massive achievement of the human race.
- tuxidomasx, on 11/20/2008, -0/+30because its very pretentious to think all the life in the universe is located on earth
- Zervaman, on 11/20/2008, -0/+29Billions of stars in a galaxy x Billions of galaxies = I am pretty sure that there is life out there
- ZenMojo, on 11/20/2008, -2/+26Considering life on this planet is capable of surviving at almost absolute zero in a complete vacuum and that same life is capable of surviving at 300 degrees Fahrenheit, anything goes.
- cheekybastard, on 11/20/2008, -2/+24Send probes with nukes .... just in case.
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -3/+24Pretty much every hypothesis about possible alien life, including this article and the Rare Earth argument, involve so much guesswork so as to be practically meaningless. Ultimately, when the sample size is 1 scientists can't help but look for other worlds like ours when seeking life. Which is why they all need to be taken in with a very healthy dose of salt. There just isn't enough information to reach ANY kind of meaningful solution.
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+19Space: it's pretty big.
- smotpoker, on 11/20/2008, -0/+18"Is that conclusion based on our body, that they'll look just like us?"
More to do with fundamental laws of physics and chemistry, nothing to do with appearance or our bodies.
As molecules approach absolute zero or move further from it, their properties change. I am no scientist and not the most familiar with chemistry or physics but it is my understanding that once molecules have no energy or too much, they are unable to bond together in stable and complex manners necessary to facilitate life at all, let alone intelligence.
Of course, this belief is based primarily on current knowledge/observations of lifeforms and conditions we can see on/from Earth but, in the end, that is what all science and working scientific theories are based on and we cannot really expect it to be based on much else. - PoizonFrog, on 11/19/2008, -1/+17mmmm...aliens
- cyrix, on 11/20/2008, -0/+15Agreed. I would consider it profoundly arrogant to think that the universe ISN'T teeming with other life forms.
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/20/2008, -0/+14It's troll bait...just bury and leave it be...
- maabus, on 11/20/2008, -0/+13The problem with the rare earth argument is that it basically assumes that life, or complex life, evolves ONLY on planets very similar to ours.
That's like the old assumptions we had about conditions HERE ON EARTH that are necessary to hold life: e.g. that life can't survive above 80 or so centigrade. We assumed this for a long time because we hadn't seen a counter-example. But as it turns out life can survive in all sorts of environments that would kill most living things on this planet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile - Zervaman, on 11/20/2008, -1/+14What?! You mean to tell me that planet earth, a rocky planet which is orbiting a typical star in an obscure part of a typical spiral galaxy, wasn't "designed" for us?
- crapuccino, on 11/20/2008, -0/+12The fp variable in the Drake Equation appears to be almost one. The next interesting piece is the ne variable, and that would be nice rocky planets within the habitable zone where water is liquid and have a nice magnetic field to keep most of the hard radiation out. A good sized moon would help to keep the axis of rotation stable too, but we're some time from being able to detect those things from a few light years away.
At least we're taking an interest in local affairs though. - cissystrut, on 11/20/2008, -0/+11time for the real space race... GO HUMANS!!!
- Culyt, on 11/20/2008, -0/+9One could be launched in your lifetime, but it might not reach there by then:
There have been some interstellar probes considered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot
☢ - velocity92c, on 11/20/2008, -1/+9The enormity of the universe can't be stated in ascii. Our entire solar system is smaller in comparison to the universe than a grain of sand is compared to the entire earth. If you don't think there's at least SOME form of other life outside of earth, you're ***** stupid.
- RudeTurnip, on 11/20/2008, -0/+8If you've ever watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" or "The Universe" on the History Channel (kind of like Cosmos but updated with our latest knowledge), you quickly come to realize that we are beyond incredibly insignificant and small. Watch one of the new movies based on Dr. Seuss books where an entire world exists on the tip of a snowflake..that's pretty much how things really are.
This is both humbling and awe-inspiring at the same time because it means that there probably could be tons of life out there. - Biks, on 11/20/2008, -0/+8Don't forget - we had life walking around here on Earth for millions of years before any intelligent creatures showed up.
I take that back...the earth is still waiting. :-P - kigabit, on 11/20/2008, -0/+7Probably more to do with water. We are working under the assumption that our complexities couldn't have evolved without water. Yes there are extremophile bacteria, but water really seems to have been a catalyst for life here, or at least complex life. Like the article said at the end, though, it's completely reasonable to think there is life that doesn't look or survive like us, "swimming around in lakes of liquid methane" or something. We're just more likely to find life looking on planets with water than searching every methane lake in the galaxy.
- charlesray, on 11/20/2008, -0/+7Any form of life that we can imagine requires some sort of liquid solvent; the best and most common is water. If a planet is too cold or has too thin of an atmosphere to support liquid water, then it is considered highly unlikely that life could evolve there.
- sanman, on 11/20/2008, -1/+8governor Palin, please get out of campaign mode
- jgzman, on 11/20/2008, -0/+6While it is entirely possible that life might exist as some kind of giant jellyfish swimming in gas giants, it is important to remember that, if it does, we have no idea what that would look like from 25 light years away. One major reason that we look for life like ours is simply that we know what we're looking for.
- youannoyme, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5Sure it is. The evidence actually swings the other way. In our observable universe there are stars upon stars upon stars, and as far as our star goes, its a rather average one anyways. Even if life requires exactly the same conditions found on earth (which would be a specious assumption to begin with), odds are those requirements will be met somewhere. To say all life is on earth would be saying that we are incredibly special (either be design of a god... or by the sheer improbability of our existence), and that sounds rather...pretentious...to me.
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5That still shouldn't stop us from searching and exploring. So what if it's more like Battlestar Galactica than it is Star Trek. It's still going to be fun to find out. Well, minus the robots and/or cyborgs trying to kill us...
- Neiby, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5No it doesn't.
- Disgod, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5Do you understand the size of the Universe? Do you understand the time scales of the Universe? We've only been able to receive signals from space for maybe 50 years, out of the past 4.7 billion years the Earth has been here. That's ~.000000010638% of the current age of the Earth. It may not be a matter of signals never reaching Earth, it may just be that we've never been in a time span where signals were being broadcast to earth and we could receive them.
Also, unfortunately, unless they've very close to us any signals which might have been sent out would quickly be lost in the background radio clutter. Our signals probably won't go out further than 10 light years before they become too weak to be picked out of the background clutter.
Unless aliens had started broadcasting the signal at least a couple thousand years ago the signal wouldn't have reached us yet.
Finally, it may just be that there is no practical way of traveling faster than the speed of light for them to be able to travel around the Universe quickly. They might just be stuck in long haul colony ships, slowly traveling the thousands of light years between habitable planets.
Basically what I'm saying is that just because we haven't received a signal or had visiting aliens yet, doesn't mean we can't discount the possibility of their existence. The Universe is just too vast for alien intelligence to have existed at some point. - Disgod, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5** The Universe is just too vast for alien intelligence to have NOT existed at some point
- beargrylls, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5yeah, why the universe may be teeming with aliens: it's really big
- Stevanoski, on 11/20/2008, -17/+22Illegal ones at that.
- Junior612, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5From a mathematical point of view - duh.
- frozensnake, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5thats true. there are tones of bacteria that thrive in extreme conditions.
- Dinsdale77, on 11/20/2008, -4/+8I knew that wasn't a dream, there IS a satellite dish in my ass!
- youannoyme, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4I read your link, and two paragraphs for the end I was about to quit and come back to write why its bullocks. Then I decide to read the last two paragraphs for completeness sake, and I find that they brush through in the next paragraph the fatal flaw of this premise. *We* came about in (and because of) a very specific set of circumstances. It is not correct at all to assume that this is the only route.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4While I am fortunate not to have many fears, a big one I do have is that we will never find life anywhere else.
- Tenar, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3Dugg for actually being interesting, informative NEWS. ;)
- VelvetoneFusion, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3Only after a 45 minute fight scene with his best friend, over some gas station Foster Grants.
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Do you want to get cancelled??? - diablo2032, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3Humans? We perfer Terrans
- MisterGnome, on 06/13/2009, -0/+3All you need for life is for something to spontaneously develop the ability replicate itself. Evolution takes it from there.
You don't need an earth like planet for that. Water helps, but liquid methane, ammonia, or anything else could work too.
EDIT: okay, old news. I should have finished the article first. - inactive, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3Send Bush too.
- atomic811, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3Go Go Power Rangers
- inefekt, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4*sigh* if you had any understanding of even basic science you'd understand why.
And a species capable of exploring the ENTIRE universe?
My mind boggles at the ridiculousness of that comment! - rand0mm0nkey, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4There's also nothing in the bible that suggests God didn't create any other intelligent life. Nor is there in any of those other texts out there with older and more plausible belief systems than yours.
- inefekt, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3What an idiotic perception.
We as humans come under the spectrum of 'intelligent life' yet we still haven't left our own solar system. Our radio waves have only covered an area of approximately 200 light years in diameter so any other intelligent life will need to be within that area to detect us through a SETI like program. We certainly aren't flying their skies in flying saucers. Any potential civilizations out there that followed your logic would conclude that they were the only intelligent life in the universe. Yet here we are. - zekefrog, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2To Serve Man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_(The_Twi ... - slabdigger, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2the only question that now remains is "what do they taste like"?
- kigabit, on 11/20/2008, -2/+4I dugg you up because I hadn't heard of the Rare Earth argument before. I think the most fascinating argument to me was that a life-bearing planet can't be in a solar system too close to the center of a galaxy, since there would be too much harmful radiation everywhere. Of course, given life's surprising adaptability here, who's to say there couldn't be radiation-tolerant life, or even life that dies without being constantly bombarded by high energy radiation?
- kc8yds, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2"(You and the rest of mankind) have no comprehension of how large the galaxy really is."
^^ I'm thinking we have a alien spy among us. -
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is