UM-Bot Posted March 2, 2014 #1 Share Posted March 2, 2014 One Harvard astronomer believes that we may have fundamentally misunderstood our place in the universe. 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.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/263158/early-habitable-epoch-universe-proposed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonicCupcake Posted March 2, 2014 #2 Share Posted March 2, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonicCupcake Posted March 2, 2014 #3 Share Posted March 2, 2014 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancient astronaut Posted March 2, 2014 #4 Share Posted March 2, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted March 3, 2014 #5 Share Posted March 3, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted March 3, 2014 #6 Share Posted March 3, 2014 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted March 3, 2014 #7 Share Posted March 3, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted March 3, 2014 #8 Share Posted March 3, 2014 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted March 3, 2014 #9 Share Posted March 3, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted March 3, 2014 #10 Share Posted March 3, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted March 3, 2014 #11 Share Posted March 3, 2014 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolguy Posted March 3, 2014 #12 Share Posted March 3, 2014 There is other life out there no dout a bout it. We are not the only life forms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted March 3, 2014 #13 Share Posted March 3, 2014 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted March 3, 2014 #14 Share Posted March 3, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted March 3, 2014 #15 Share Posted March 3, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einsteinium Posted March 3, 2014 #16 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I don't believe this. Why? Because there were hardly any heavy elements during this early stage of the universe. The heavy elements were all created by successive generations of stars. Which means there would only be gas giants and massive stars back this early, no rocky planets, barely any carbon let alone heavier elements than that. How can life evolve and exist, even primitive life, without heavy elements? All life as we know it needs carbon. Never-mind oxygen and nitrogen which are heavier still than carbon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted March 4, 2014 #17 Share Posted March 4, 2014 But if we are doubling our scientific knowledge base every three to five years, maybe in less time than that, just how truthful is our thoughts on what life is? How caught off guard will the scientists be if they find life without our perhaps immature standards of what life is? We have bacteria that exist in places that we never thought could survive at those temps. So we had to rearrange just what bacteria can and cannot withstand. If the objective is to look for another place, another planet, for humans to litter and taint, then of course, their standards should be accepted. 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. 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. Amazing, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted March 4, 2014 #18 Share Posted March 4, 2014 We aren't doubling our scientific knowledge every 5 years. The laws of nature remain how they have always been. We don't reinvent the wheel every time new science is discovered but new discoveries build on old knowledge. We have a pretty good idea how chemistry works 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spud the mackem Posted March 4, 2014 #19 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Perhaps species are/have evolved breathing other gases than Oxygen.We breathe all kinds of gases and live,especially in big cities during "rush" hour.They might thrive on what would kill us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted March 4, 2014 #20 Share Posted March 4, 2014 There are reasons hydrocarbons and oxygen work for this while other things don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now