Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Early 'habitable epoch' universe proposed


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1    UM-Bot

UM-Bot

    News, media and articles

  • 6,196 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • Beep Boop

Posted 02 March 2014 - 11:58 AM

One Harvard astronomer believes that we may have fundamentally misunderstood our place in the universe.

Quote

As astronomers identify more and more worlds orbiting distant stars, the habitability of those worlds is becoming an increasingly hot topic. Most extrasolar planets are turning out to be either too near or too far from their parent star to support life with only a handful being located in the habitable zone where liquid water can exist.

Read More: http://www.unexplain...iverse-proposed

This is an official comment thread for a main site news story, article or video.
Please keep comments civil and on topic.
Thank you.

#2    DemonicCupcake

DemonicCupcake

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 118 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New Hampshire

  • "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?" - Abe

Posted 02 March 2014 - 05:10 PM

That would be quite remarkable to eventually confirm. And, I actually think that is a very interesting theory. What if it was long enough to develop highly advanced societies who settled on earth before they calculated that they were going to lose their planet, and wanted to preserve their race? And that is why we witness them lifting out from the water often, the "underwater secret base" at AUTEC, Area 51. Ya' never know.


#3    DemonicCupcake

DemonicCupcake

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 118 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New Hampshire

  • "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?" - Abe

Posted 02 March 2014 - 05:18 PM

Especially if you wanted to really branch off and imagine, if we were a world full of less advanced creatures, and we are the product of genetically joining a species of earth and their DNA. It would explain why we throw off the whole ecosystem. If you look at the natural balance of the world, there is a basic food chain, and everybody compensates for everybody elses weaknesses and strengths. And yet, we have managed to throw it off, to the point where we have caused mess species endangerment/extinction, are causing permanent damage, whether it be "global warming" if you believe in that, making entire areas of the world uninhabitable due to radiation, and tearing down our forests COMPLETELY obliterating nature and the life within day by day to accommodate our own needs? Something about that whole thing just doesn't quite seem natural to me, but it is all opinion I guess.


#4    ancient astronaut

ancient astronaut

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 901 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:31 spooner street

  • It Is What It Is.

Posted 02 March 2014 - 06:03 PM

I was under the understanding that the majority of scientists today actually do believe that the Universe is full of life, and not the other way around.

[media='funny-pic'][/media]

#5    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,218 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 03 March 2014 - 12:13 AM

View Postancient astronaut, on 02 March 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

I was under the understanding that the majority of scientists today actually do believe that the Universe is full of life, and not the other way around.
Most scientists would try not to use the word "belief" in this situation, as belief requires no evidence. Instead they would say that, given the current state of knowledge, the probability is high that life is common in the universe.

However that is a little irrelevant as you seem to be missing the point of the original post. The hypothesis has nothing to do with the probability of life NOW, rather it introduces the idea that the universe as habitable much sooner after the big bang than was previously believed.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#6    Hawkin

Hawkin

    LiverEatenJohnson

  • Member
  • 2,784 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Some say he is dead.
    Some say he will never be.

Posted 03 March 2014 - 02:53 AM

It seems that there is this notion that we base lifeforms out there by our environment and what it takes for our existence.  That they can't exist unless they have oxygen, water and proper temps. Example, creatures of the deep oceans. Tube worms and certain types of shrimp inhabit around volcanic vents that are very hot and spew toxins that would kill us but yet these creatures thrive. It could be possible lifeforms on other worlds that are harsh for us would be ideal for them.


#7    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 7,762 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 03 March 2014 - 02:57 AM

View PostDemonicCupcake, on 02 March 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

Especially if you wanted to really branch off and imagine, if we were a world full of less advanced creatures, and we are the product of genetically joining a species of earth and their DNA. It would explain why we throw off the whole ecosystem. If you look at the natural balance of the world, there is a basic food chain, and everybody compensates for everybody elses weaknesses and strengths. And yet, we have managed to throw it off, to the point where we have caused mess species endangerment/extinction, are causing permanent damage, whether it be "global warming" if you believe in that, making entire areas of the world uninhabitable due to radiation, and tearing down our forests COMPLETELY obliterating nature and the life within day by day to accommodate our own needs? Something about that whole thing just doesn't quite seem natural to me, but it is all opinion I guess.

Agriculture explains all of that.
Not alien DNA experiments.

"You do not teach the paths of the forest to an old gorilla."


"It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired - you quit when the gorilla is tired."


RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#8    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Alien Abducter

  • Banned
  • 4,810 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 03 March 2014 - 03:15 AM

I heard that it is not really the distance from the parent sun/s and it's heat radition that is really necessary for life. The possibility of life is about how that planet and life utilizes the radiation and energy coming from the sun/s and the parent cosmos.


#9    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,218 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 03 March 2014 - 05:00 AM

View PostHawkin, on 03 March 2014 - 02:53 AM, said:

It seems that there is this notion that we base lifeforms out there by our environment and what it takes for our existence.  That they can't exist unless they have oxygen, water and proper temps.
No, we base our notion of what life forms could exist out there on a firm understanding of chemistry.

We know that life can survive in conditions that we would find too harsh (hence the reason astrobiologists have suggested volcanic vents in the oceans of Europa as the most likely place to find life elsewhere in the solar system), but even taking that into account the vast majority of planets that we know about are simply too hot or too cold to allow the complex molecules necessary for life to exist.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#10    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,218 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 03 March 2014 - 05:05 AM

View Postregeneratia, on 03 March 2014 - 03:15 AM, said:

I heard that it is not really the distance from the parent sun/s and it's heat radition that is really necessary for life. The possibility of life is about how that planet and life utilizes the radiation and energy coming from the sun/s and the parent cosmos.

That is only true to a degree (for example the Earth is warmer than it's distance from the Sun would suggest because of the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere), however radiation received from a star drops off according to an inverse square law (double the distance you receive only 1/4 of the light and heat, treble the distance and you receive only 1/9 of the light and heat and so on) so as you move further away the amount of available light and heat drops dramatically, meaning that (if there are no other heat sources) distance from the star is a very important factor. No amount of greenhouse gases would make Pluto habitable.

However once again this is irrelevant and missing the point, as the original article suggest that in the early universe the background radiation from the big bang would provide sufficient heat for life to form, irrespective of distance from the star.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#11    Hawkin

Hawkin

    LiverEatenJohnson

  • Member
  • 2,784 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Some say he is dead.
    Some say he will never be.

Posted 03 March 2014 - 05:11 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 03 March 2014 - 05:05 AM, said:

That is only true to a degree (for example the Earth is warmer than it's distance from the Sun would suggest because of the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere), however radiation received from a star drops off according to an inverse square law (double the distance you receive only 1/4 of the light and heat, treble the distance and you receive only 1/9 of the light and heat and so on) so as you move further away the amount of available light and heat drops dramatically, meaning that (if there are no other heat sources) distance from the star is a very important factor. No amount of greenhouse gases would make Pluto habitable.

However once again this is irrelevant and missing the point, as the original article suggest that in the early universe the background radiation from the big bang would provide sufficient heat for life to form, irrespective of distance from the star.
Looks Good On Paper.

   It's good to have some skepticism so you won't be gullible & naïve.
But to much skepticism can make you narrow minded to extraordinary possibilities.

#12    coolguy

coolguy

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,394 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:east islip , new york

  • Star trek rules

Posted 03 March 2014 - 06:07 AM

There is other life out there no dout a bout it. We are not the only life forms


#13    taniwha

taniwha

    Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:47 AM

I think this habitable epoch theory echoes the gestation and incubation periods within ancestral geneaology chants, other wise known as creation myths. Science can define by any other model the genesis of life, but the concept of a universal mother is no further from the truth.  It is humbling to acknowledge our ancestors and their ancient wisdom.

" Where does yesterday go to? Where does tomorrow come from? Is not the universe the proginetor of space and time? "
                                                                        **Time-machine Universe**
                                                            http://www.unexplain...howtopic=286269

#14    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,410 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 03 March 2014 - 02:44 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 03 March 2014 - 12:13 AM, said:

Most scientists would try not to use the word "belief" in this situation, as belief requires no evidence. Instead they would say that, given the current state of knowledge, the probability is high that life is common in the universe.

However that is a little irrelevant as you seem to be missing the point of the original post. The hypothesis has nothing to do with the probability of life NOW, rather it introduces the idea that the universe as habitable much sooner after the big bang than was previously believed.

Which is quite irrelevant to the fact that most, if not all, the elements necessary for life to arise were not present at that epoch. The hypothesis proposed in the OP does constitute a belief that life does not require those elements - which is not within our current understanding.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#15    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,130 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 03 March 2014 - 05:34 PM

View PostHawkin, on 03 March 2014 - 02:53 AM, said:

It seems that there is this notion that we base lifeforms out there by our environment and what it takes for our existence.  That they can't exist unless they have oxygen, water and proper temps. Example, creatures of the deep oceans. Tube worms and certain types of shrimp inhabit around volcanic vents that are very hot and spew toxins that would kill us but yet these creatures thrive. It could be possible lifeforms on other worlds that are harsh for us would be ideal for them.
Yeah but breathing oxygen was what allowed complex intelligent life to come about





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users