What happens if a signal is found?

[Golden Duck]

19 hours ago, Hazzard said:

Unless of course the galaxy is full of life and the high tech aliens only find it worth their wile to come visit civilizations that "show themselves". In our case our expanding radio bubble?

Nice pun

[Hazzard]

11 hours ago, qxcontinuum said:

I dont think religion is telling us that we are alone in the universe, by contrary God and his hierarchy of Angels living somewhere outside earth in itself is a revealing story of extraterrestrial beings and their involvement in human affairs. Cosmology is alsi associated to numerous religions from earth.

So why is religion considered a major opponent against religion I dunno.

 

That has not always been the case. But in these days, as science expands our knowledge and shines a light on the previously unknown mysteries, some explained as divine intervention before, religion has moved the goalpost. Survival instinct Im guessing?

Edited August 14, 2019 by Hazzard

[psyche101]

19 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Exactly, Habitat.  People cannot help but being egocentric. And they really think that if Aliens do exist, they are only a few hundred thousand years ahead of us.
Totally ludicrous!  If Aliens do exist then the conditions were right for Alien life 10 billion years ago or more, not just at the advent of the earthling.

What's 'life' though, and how often is intelligence achieved? Is it always inevitable? Our galaxy was born over 13 billion years ago and it took this planet that long to get to this point. What would give another planet a development advantage and how often would that happen? Why would that be common away from here? 

And if the universe truly is 'teeming' with life, why aren't there other species at our level or just beyond that could get our attention? How come we don't see versions of the nuclear theoretical Orion with species who took the risk? Billions of tiny probes? Lazer flashes? We are trying to work out if atmospheres show signs of an industrial revolution, surely others would look for that too? Stuff we are trying?

And why always 'at our level' or 'far advanced'? Why are they the only 2 options? 

[psyche101]

On 8/13/2019 at 3:18 AM, Hazzard said:

If that day ever comes I seriously hope that they keep the politicians and the religious crowd out of the picture. The people that should "do the talking" are scientists. Real scientists. 

Politicians are too busy getting drunk, playing in parliament or getting their hair dyed orange. I'd say someone like SETI would be first contact. 

[Hazzard]

19 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Politicians are too busy getting drunk, playing in parliament or getting their hair dyed orange. I'd say someone like SETI would be first contact. 

Seth Shostak and Jill Tarter seems like a good choise to me, and if I could throw another one in there my vote would go to Neil Degrasse Tyson.... Richard Dawkins perhaps.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Hazzard

[stereologist]

On 8/12/2019 at 6:05 AM, RabidMongoose said:

I dont have to justify myself to you.

I am not wasting my time trying to educate someone who doesnt know what they are going on about, and wont listen to someone qualified to talk about it. You are now going onto ignore.

Thanks for admitting you failed by doing the following:

1. Not supporting your claims

2. Misrepresenting the links you used

3. Revealing your ignorance of basic physics

4. Not responding when these matters were brought to your attention

Well done. Keep it up. 

The major failures:

1. Making up that ridiculous CD story which was a laughable story

2. Failed to understand that quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate

3. That negative energy is one of several interpretations used in physics

4. That negative energy widens the speed range. That is completely wrong and reveals a lack of understanding of relativity.

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

What's 'life' though, and how often is intelligence achieved?

Good question and the only way I can speculate is to say that since scientific "experiments" can be repeated if the conditions are the same, then we can consider it very plausible that other intelligent life exists. Yes, our "labartory" earth has the exact same elements and environment as some other planet, so we can expect the same results. In other words, if you have "life", you likely will see that evolve to its extreme through DNA alterations, of course. Not provable but it is logical.

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Is it always inevitable? Our galaxy was born over 13 billion years ago and it took this planet that long to get to this point.

Firstly, 13.4 billion years old for the galaxy, but our planet is only 4.5 billion years old. And even then, scientists are purplexed as to how long it took for life to begin on the planet. It is disputed but scientists think 2.7 billion to as much as 3.5 billion years ago. Why so long to start up? But of course, why so long for intelligent life is a question mark too. But it happened. eventually. Not saying it will in all cases of earth twins, but it can.

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

What would give another planet a development advantage and how often would that happen? Why would that be common away from here? 

It's kinda like asking - do certain species of fish survive better in the atlantic or in the warmer waters of the pacific? No real way for us to predict but there is a natural wide range of environments on earth twins to think that some have really hit the sweet spot, and they are much older.

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

And if the universe truly is 'teeming' with life, why aren't there other species at our level or just beyond that could get our attention?

Look at the tiny window that earthlings have been in existence, 200,000 or so years. We are embryos! If you look at *all* planets with intelligent life in this galaxy, the mean existence of those civilizations would be in terms of several billions of years, and the number of civilizations that are roughly where earth in terms of development  would be minute, if not unique to planet earth. Just playing the probabilities here since we assume the universe was born out of random chaos. (normal distribution)

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

How come we don't see versions of the nuclear theoretical Orion with species who took the risk? Billions of tiny probes? Lazer flashes? We are trying to work out if atmospheres show signs of an industrial revolution, surely others would look for that too? Stuff we are trying?

I can't answer that. We have basically just begun to look at exoplanets planets. It's exciting. As to "looking for signs of industrial revolution" - - I did not know we could. But the technologies you cite here are a bit archaic compared to what we perceive as the technology that advanced beings would have. Again, the number of earth twins civilizations that are akin to earth technology-wise would be quite minimal so expecting to see such signs on exoplanets would be pie in the sky, IMO. Kepler only looked at 100,000 stars and its life was cut quite short due to mechanical failure and we still have very interesting results 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

And why always 'at our level' or 'far advanced'? Why are they the only 2 options? 

Oh, no, I see a whole spectrum, of course. That is how nature/randomness works. If we see two civilizations come to earth in space ships, they look the same to us, yet one could be a billion years more advanced than the other and we'd not know that (because we're too dumb lol)

[Golden Duck]

5 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

...

Firstly, 13.4 billion years old for the galaxy, but our planet is only 4.5 billion years old. And even then, scientists are purplexed as to how long it took for life to begin on the planet. It is disputed but scientists think 2.7 billion to as much as 3.5 billion years ago. Why so long to start up? But of course, why so long for intelligent life is a question mark too. But it happened. eventually. Not saying it will in all cases of earth twins, but it can.

...

The best guess is for the forming of the Milky Way Galaxay is a period of about four billion years ending about 6.5 billion years ago.  

Galaxies, stars and systems all need time to form.  

[stereologist]

55 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The best guess is for the forming of the Milky Way Galaxay is a period of about four billion years ending about 6.5 billion years ago.  

Galaxies, stars and systems all need time to form.  

Golden Duck just agreeing with you here and pointing out that the oldest star discovered to date is around 13By old. But that is not when all of the stars formed.

One of the favorite places people try to claim aliens come from is the Pleiades. They are only 200My old. 

The material planets come from is formed in stars and other cosmic events. You can't have planets until stars start making carbon and oxygen and tossing that material out into the cosmos to form new systems. Just learned this cool fact. The most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and helium. The next is oxygen.  It beats carbon for abundance even though carbon is formed by fusing  helium atoms. All of this fusing in stars has to happen first.

All of those supernova that Earl.Of.Trumps mentioned? That's what spewing the materials to make planets out of the stars creating the elements.

[Golden Duck]

56 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Golden Duck just agreeing with you here and pointing out that the oldest star discovered to date is around 13By old. But that is not when all of the stars formed.

One of the favorite places people try to claim aliens come from is the Pleiades. They are only 200My old. 

The material planets come from is formed in stars and other cosmic events. You can't have planets until stars start making carbon and oxygen and tossing that material out into the cosmos to form new systems. Just learned this cool fact. The most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and helium. The next is oxygen.  It beats carbon for abundance even though carbon is formed by fusing  helium atoms. All of this fusing in stars has to happen first.

All of those supernova that Earl.Of.Trumps mentioned? That's what spewing the materials to make planets out of the stars creating the elements.

I was more curious about the creation of iron too.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The best guess is for the forming of the Milky Way Galaxay is a period of about four billion years ending about 6.5 billion years ago.  

Galaxies, stars and systems all need time to form.  

The oldest stars in the Milky Way are 13.4 billion years, give or take 800 million years. This is somewhat close to what the age of the Universe is (which hovers around 13.7 billion years). ...

The galactic disk is not thought to have formed until about 10 – 12 billion years ago.  UniverseToday Link

----------------

And Golden, I am not so much interested in how long it the MW took to form but rather how long it was in in existence and could therefor, have planets that my have been earth twins that spawned life.

 

[Golden Duck]

5 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The oldest stars in the Milky Way are 13.4 billion years, give or take 800 million years. This is somewhat close to what the age of the Universe is (which hovers around 13.7 billion years). ...

The galactic disk is not thought to have formed until about 10 – 12 billion years ago.  UniverseToday Link

----------------

And Golden, I am not so much interested in how long it the MW took to form but rather how long it was in in existence and could therefor, have planets that my have been earth twins that spawned life.

 

The point is the planets need to form sometime after the stars in the MW produced the requisite elements.

[psyche101]

18 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Good question and the only way I can speculate is to say that since scientific "experiments" can be repeated if the conditions are the same, then we can consider it very plausible that other intelligent life exists. Yes, our "labartory" earth has the exact same elements and environment as some other planet, so we can expect the same results. In other words, if you have "life", you likely will see that evolve to its extreme through DNA alterations, of course. Not provable but it is logical.

The building blocks for life are abundant in the universe but that doesn't mean life is let alone intelligent life. 

How are the same results not a similar time line for the development of intelligent life? We might be 800 to 1200 years further along had religion never been thought up, or not here at all possibly if that Dino asteroid had missed. The universe, gakaxies, solar systems, stars and planets had to evolve too. Why 'must' intelligent life evolve at a quicker pace elsewhere? What is the minimal expected shortest time frame for 'intelligent' life to have evolved? Not just 'life'? 

All these factors chip away at the liklihood of visitation. 

Quote

Firstly, 13.4 billion years old for the galaxy, but our planet is only 4.5 billion years old. And even then, scientists are purplexed as to how long it took for life to begin on the planet. It is disputed but scientists think 2.7 billion to as much as 3.5 billion years ago.

3.5 undisputed. It took off fast sure, but lived fast and died fast too. Many times life faced critical extinction levels. 

Quote

Why so long to start up?

The planet had to evolve to support life. Early earth probably looked purple from space. It had no oxygen. Then  carbon has to bond and single celled organisms had to evolve into multi celled, I mean by what standard is life on earth considered 'slow to evolve'? Its a complex process. 

Quote

But of course, why so long for intelligent life is a question mark too. But it happened. eventually.

Again, I'm not sure why you think it was a slow development. We overcame incredible odds, and almost went extinct. Several times almost all life was wiped out. Other species on the planet were at the same level of evolution. Had we not made it another sapiens might be were we are today. They weren't more advanced than we, so how are we slow to develop? 

Quote

Not saying it will in all cases of earth twins, but it can.

Mathematically we can guess that there might be 60 'earth like' planets within 32 light years. Life will be restricted on many 'earth like' planets we have found so far. Some are tidally locked, almost all are at least twice the size of earth. Life would be slower to evolve there having greater challenges to overcome. That's what evolution does. It allows life to survive. The crocodile and the shark have changed little over millions of years because they adapted. Some life may never find need to evolve beyond those rudimentary basics. Intelligent life is not a goal of nature nor a given. 

And as you note planets are abundant. So are moons, which might make better habitats. So why expend incredible resources even if physics could be broken to go past all those planets to our lone offering on the edge of one arm of the milky way? 

Quote

It's kinda like asking - do certain species of fish survive better in the atlantic or in the warmer waters of the pacific? No real way for us to predict but there is a natural wide range of environments on earth twins to think that some have really hit the sweet spot, and they are much older.

Not really. Certain species of fish are what they are because they have adapted to a certain environment. 

Same thing with the universe. Its not a given that all of the galaxy is habitable. There are as you say supanova, black holes, neutron stars, magnetars, all sorts of nasties that sterilise life. 

As I say, there are a lot of factors 'against' and together they are significant. 

Quote

Look at the tiny window that earthlings have been in existence, 200,000 or so years. We are embryos! If you look at *all* planets with intelligent life in this galaxy, the mean existence of those civilizations would be in terms of several billions of years, and the number of civilizations that are roughly where earth in terms of development  would be minute, if not unique to planet earth. Just playing the probabilities here since we assume the universe was born out of random chaos. (normal distribution)

I really don't think you are factoring in the above. As I say, there's possibly 60 planets which are 'earth like' within 32 light years. There's no reason at all to think all have intelligent life. And again, why here? So many planets. What is the logic in going further than one has to, especially considering the vastness of space? How do you know we aren't a 1 in 60 chance as an average? Maybe that's common? We don't know. There's no reason to think we are the only life sure  but no good reason to say there is probably more advanced species on other planets within practical reach. There's no evidence to indicate that is the case. Might be, might not be. 

Quote

I can't answer that. We have basically just begun to look at exoplanets planets. It's exciting. As to "looking for signs of industrial revolution" - - I did not know we could.

We are currently developing these methods. Some feel we should look for oxygen atmospheres (as oxygen = some form of life at least plant life) whilst others feel we should look for methane and nitrogen. 

https://www.airspacemag.com/space/signs-180971224/

Quote

But the technologies you cite here are a bit archaic compared to what we perceive as the technology that advanced beings would have.

Exactly my point, but viable forms of travel. They would work. If intelligent life is abundant, why didn't one of them take the leap 100 or 200 years ago and head out in a sub light ship? We nearly gave it a shot. Who's to say everyone would reach that same decision? Why is it some only perceive extremely advanced tech well beyond our capability? How is that not just a cop out? Why would such an advanced species bother to dumb down? Why not rule the planet? Colonise and terraform Mars? Reverse the rotation of Venus and clear up the global warming and have an earth twin nice and close? 

Hiding amongst apes buzzing their cars and picking on the least believable specimens on the planet just doesn't strike me as the behaviour of an advanced intelligent species. 

Quote

Again, the number of earth twins civilizations that are akin to earth technology-wise would be quite minimal so expecting to see such signs on exoplanets would be pie in the sky, IMO. Kepler only looked at 100,000 stars and its life was cut quite short due to mechanical failure and we still have very interesting results 

And most of what it found was very far away. 100,000 stars. Not one alien I love Lucy, no repeat WOW! nothing. 

Maybe some planets where life could exist. And don't get me wrong, that's awesome, but nothing to indicate a galaxy teeming with intelligent life. 

Quote

Oh, no, I see a whole spectrum, of course. That is how nature/randomness works. If we see two civilizations come to earth in space ships, they look the same to us, yet one could be a billion years more advanced than the other and we'd not know that (because we're too dumb lol)

How do you know? Why wouldn't doctors or scientists notice this? Why would their physical make up down to a DNA level be undetectable? As far as I know it wouldn't. We have certain DNA markers that connect all life on this earth, from us down to fruit flies. Why wouldn't we be able to detect an alien species? 'We are too dumb' seems a bit broad, especially when this advanced species hides from, blends with instead of ruling? 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

@psyche101 Now this is the type of conversation that is a bit lacking in these UFO boards. Speculative - yes, but so what? That is what UM is here for! 

Later, when I have more time, I will address your post. If in the end, you think no intelligent life exist in the MW galaxy and I do, - hey, no harm no foul. Later.

[toast]

16 hours ago, stereologist said:

One of the favorite places people try to claim aliens come from is the Pleiades.

This^^ and from an astronomical point of view, the claim "they come from the Pleiades" is such stupid, it cannot be topped. M45 is a star cluster with approximately 1200 stars and having a diameter of approximately 35LY. The cluster itself is 2° of the sky which is 4 times the full Moon. But the morons are talking about the Pleiades like its a little village with one street and 7 house to it.

[Dejarma]

2 hours ago, toast said:

This^^ and from an astronomical point of view, the claim "they come from the Pleiades" is such stupid, it cannot be topped. M45 is a star cluster with approximately 1200 stars and having a diameter of approximately 35LY. The cluster itself is 2° of the sky which is 4 times the full Moon. But the morons are talking about the Pleiades like its a little village with one street and 7 house to it.

yep, i guess it's like asking a stranger where they come from; they wouldn't say earth

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The building blocks for life are abundant in the universe but that doesn't mean life is let alone intelligent life. 

How are the same results not a similar time line for the development of intelligent life? We might be 800 to 1200 years further along had religion never been thought up, or not here at all possibly if that Dino asteroid had missed. The universe, gakaxies, solar systems, stars and planets had to evolve too. Why 'must' intelligent life evolve at a quicker pace elsewhere? What is the minimal expected shortest time frame for 'intelligent' life to have evolved? Not just 'life'? 

No way for me to answer that. I think about repeating an experiment with all the same factors (building blocks of life) in place and I assume we get similar results. not proven but, unless someone proposes - even a theory, that earth is somehow special and escaped pitfalls that are expected to be the norm on other earth twins then I think my theory has legs. One has to show me why an earth twin that has been around for sufficient time, cannot have life on it before I entertain the idea.

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

All these factors chip away at the liklihood of visitation. 

3.5 undisputed. It took off fast sure, but lived fast and died fast too. Many times life faced critical extinction levels. 

undisputed? I believe my link from UniverseToday disputes it heavily. So do other sources. The disk of this galaxy was formed 12-13 billion years ago.

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The planet had to evolve to support life. Early earth probably looked purple from space. It had no oxygen. Then  carbon has to bond and single celled organisms had to evolve into multi celled, I mean by what standard is life on earth considered 'slow to evolve'? Its a complex process. 

It is complex but scientists still are not sure as to why life was not created earlier than what evidence shows that it was.

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Again, I'm not sure why you think it was a slow development. We overcame incredible odds, and almost went extinct. Several times almost all life was wiped out. Other species on the planet were at the same level of evolution. Had we not made it another sapiens might be were we are today. They weren't more advanced than we, so how are we slow to develop? 

Mathematically we can guess that there might be 60 'earth like' planets within 32 light years. Life will be restricted on many 'earth like' planets we have found so far. Some are tidally locked, almost all are at least twice the size of earth. Life would be slower to evolve there having greater challenges to overcome. That's what evolution does. It allows life to survive. The crocodile and the shark have changed little over millions of years because they adapted. Some life may never find need to evolve beyond those rudimentary basics. Intelligent life is not a goal of nature nor a given. 

And as you note planets are abundant. So are moons, which might make better habitats. So why expend incredible resources even if physics could be broken to go past all those planets to our lone offering on the edge of one arm of the milky way? 

Not really. Certain species of fish are what they are because they have adapted to a certain environment. 

That was sort my point, specific environment, not just saying "this planet"

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Same thing with the universe. Its not a given that all of the galaxy is habitable. There are as you say supanova, black holes, neutron stars, magnetars, all sorts of nasties that sterilise life. 

As I say, there are a lot of factors 'against' and together they are significant. 

Of course they are significant. So are the numbers of planets that are earth twins. you set up earth to be some incredible, once-in-a-universe item. I doubt that

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I really don't think you are factoring in the above. As I say, there's possibly 60 planets which are 'earth like' within 32 light years. There's no reason at all to think all have intelligent life. And again, why here? So many planets. What is the logic in going further than one has to, especially considering the vastness of space? How do you know we aren't a 1 in 60 chance as an average? Maybe that's common? We don't know. There's no reason to think we are the only life sure  but no good reason to say there is probably more advanced species on other planets within practical reach. There's no evidence to indicate that is the case. Might be, might not be. 

Agreed, we don't know. All we can do is spin the numbers and take educated guesses. My intuition tells me earth is not the one in a trillion, and even if it was there are two trillion galaxies to dwell on, too. We're not alone, that I am certain  of.

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

We are currently developing these methods. Some feel we should look for oxygen atmospheres (as oxygen = some form of life at least plant life) whilst others feel we should look for methane and nitrogen. 

https://www.airspacemag.com/space/signs-180971224/

Exactly my point, but viable forms of travel. They would work. If intelligent life is abundant, why didn't one of them take the leap 100 or 200 years ago and head out in a sub light ship? We nearly gave it a shot. Who's to say everyone would reach that same decision? Why is it some only perceive extremely advanced tech well beyond our capability? How is that not just a cop out?

It's not a cop out. the vast majority of planets with intelligent life on them have far more advanced or evolved civilizations simply by the bell curve numbers. We're the true embryo of this galaxy.

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Why would such an advanced species bother to dumb down? Why not rule the planet? Colonise and terraform Mars? Reverse the rotation of Venus and clear up the global warming and have an earth twin nice and close? 

Of course, I have no answer for that. There are so MANY planets for ets to choose from. just because they don't come near us is no indication as to their existence.

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Hiding amongst apes buzzing their cars and picking on the least believable specimens on the planet just doesn't strike me as the behaviour of an advanced intelligent species. 

And most of what it found was very far away. 100,000 stars. Not one alien I love Lucy, no repeat WOW! nothing. 

Maybe some planets where life could exist. And don't get me wrong, that's awesome, but nothing to indicate a galaxy teeming with intelligent life. 

How do you know? Why wouldn't doctors or scientists notice this? Why would their physical make up down to a DNA level be undetectable? As far as I know it wouldn't. We have certain DNA markers that connect all life on this earth, from us down to fruit flies. Why wouldn't we be able to detect an alien species? 'We are too dumb' seems a bit broad, especially when this advanced species hides from, blends with instead of ruling? 

I have a theory about DNA. I think that when DNA is first created on the very first entity on any planet, it's the same. Then it quickly mutates to suit the current environment. Just a theory. 

[Dejarma]

4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I have a theory about DNA. I think that when DNA is first created on the very first entity on any planet, it's the same. Then it quickly mutates to suit the current environment. Just a theory. 

i agree, though i'd prefer to use the word formed rather than created

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

i agree, though i'd prefer to use the word formed rather than created

I think we are all aliens, I suspect that the building blocks for DNA were not formed on Earth. I think it is more likely that they came to earth from Comet or Asteroid impacts. But I think Comets would be the more likely candidate, because they are comprised of a great deal of frozen water. Which would protect samples better than a Asteroid impact.

In fact it's possible that completed DNA strands may have come to earth on Comets frozen and just waiting to be thawed out. While everything is just theory a number of scientists also beleive its possible.

heres a link that talks about a recent discovery of a complete DNA strand coming from out space and impacting on Earth.

 

https://www.*** blocked ***/news/weird/554074/Alien-seed-sent-Earth-aliens-Scientists-baffled

https://www.*** blocked ***/news/weird/554074/Alien-seed-sent-Earth-aliens-Scientists-baffled

Dont know why the links are being blocked.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[Hazzard]

4 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I think we are all aliens, I suspect that the building blocks for DNA were not formed on Earth. I think it is more likely that they came to earth from Comet or Asteroid impacts. But I think Comets would be the more likely candidate, because they are comprised of a great deal of frozen water. Which would protect samples better than a Asteroid impact.

In fact it's possible that completed DNA strands may have come to earth on Comets frozen and just waiting to be thawed out. While everything is just theory a number of scientists also beleive its possible.

heres a link that talks about a recent discovery of a complete DNA strand coming from out space and impacting on Earth.

 

https://www.*** blocked ***/news/weird/554074/Alien-seed-sent-Earth-aliens-Scientists-baffled

https://www.*** blocked ***/news/weird/554074/Alien-seed-sent-Earth-aliens-Scientists-baffled

Dont know why the links are being blocked.

It pretty clear to us by now that comets contain most of the necessary ingredients for life. The only thing missing for live to form on a comet is energy, its to damb cold. But if you throw a comet into a warm (lifeless) ocean then all you have to do is wait a couple of billion years and Poof!,...Leave them Prokaryotes alone to thrive and before you know it they will be strapped in at the top of a Saturn V.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Hazzard

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

7 hours ago, Dejarma said:

i agree, though i'd prefer to use the word formed rather than created

HO-LEE!  I've got this posted on facebook now.  Dejarma agrees with me LOL

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

7 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I think we are all aliens, I suspect that the building blocks for DNA were not formed on Earth. I think it is more likely that they came to earth from Comet or Asteroid impacts. But I think Comets would be the more likely candidate, because they are comprised of a great deal of frozen water. Which would protect samples better than a Asteroid impact.

In fact it's possible that completed DNA strands may have come to earth on Comets frozen and just waiting to be thawed out. While everything is just theory a number of scientists also beleive its possible.

heres a link that talks about a recent discovery of a complete DNA strand coming from out space and impacting on Earth.

 

https://www.*** blocked ***/news/weird/554074/Alien-seed-sent-Earth-aliens-Scientists-baffled

https://www.*** blocked ***/news/weird/554074/Alien-seed-sent-Earth-aliens-Scientists-baffled

Dont know why the links are being blocked.

Interesting take. Do you suspect that DNA was formed in stars?  I think about that. It has to be created *someplace* that is somewhat common in the universe. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, Hazzard said:

It pretty clear to us by now that comets contain most of the necessary ingredients for life. The only thing missing for live to form on a comet is energy, its to damb cold. But if you throw a comet into a warm (lifeless) ocean then all you have to do is wait a couple of billion years and Poof!,...Leave them Prokaryotes alone to thrive and before you know it they will be strapped in at the top of a Saturn V.

Hazzard, I have read more than once that with the key ingredients in place - soil, water, oxygen, lightning, the 9 amino acids necessary for life can be formed. They have repeated this experiment in the laboratory many times, (substituting electrical current for lightning).

French scientists claim that there was one key ingredient beyond that,  and it took a long time to come to earth, and that is their explanation as to what delayed the onset of life on this planet. Damned if I can find a link on that. I'd say I saw it some 5 years ago. Very interesting article.

[stereologist]

13 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

undisputed? I believe my link from UniverseToday disputes it heavily. So do other sources. The disk of this galaxy was formed 12-13 billion years ago.

It is complex but scientists still are not sure as to why life was not created earlier than what evidence shows that it was.

The formation of the galactic disk and the first stars does not mean that there were any elements to form planets other than planets made of the available elements: hydrogen and a tiny bit of helium. It doesn't mean that many stars formed. 

It took hundreds of millions of years to form the heavier elements up to iron. Even after they formed there were no planets until this material was spread out by supernova. Our Sun will not go nova and the carbon it forms will not be ejected into the cosmos. It remains a part of our solar system.

Life on Earth appears quite early in the formation of the planet. Life is detected less than a billion years after the solar system was formed.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Interesting take. Do you suspect that DNA was formed in stars?  I think about that. It has to be created *someplace* that is somewhat common in the universe. 

DNA is unlikely to be formed in stars where there are few molecules. The temperatures are too hot and the radiation is too strong. 

DNA is somewhat fragile. The building blocks for DNA are found outside of stars in less hostile environments. 

This experiment produced amino acids that form proteins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

Components of DNA have been found in meteorites

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44068626/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/building-blocks-dna-found-meteorites-space#.XVbExehKg_w