ESOCommunity

Well technically beyond doubt alien life exists.

We are the aliens dude.

Woah.

Indeed we are. The probability of us being alone in the universe is infinitely small.

Garja wrote:Indeed we are. The probability of us being alone in the universe is infinitely small.

its very small. not infinitely small.

Considering the fact that the universe keeps expanding it is infinitely small.

i believe in u garja <3

Why would you say that the possibility of us being alone is small? I still can't believe such complex forms of life managed to form once, i am very doubtful about the possibility of it happening again in a significant time lapse/location for us humans. Maybe if you search far and wide you can find some sort of complex organic molecules, but the odds of them evolving into cellular forms of life is not high really. Consider all the conditions that you can have to meet in order to have an environment that can sustain life (water, temperature, atmosphere), consider that it takes millions of years for life to form (in those years anything could happen that could disrupt the formation of life), consider the complexity of life as we know it (honestly i see it pretty much as a miracle). Even if some sort of life was able to form it wouldn't necessarily have to become intelligent to the point where it can manipulate electromagnetic waves and send signals to the rest of the universe. I think we are very likely to become extinct before we can meet other forms of intelligent life.

gamevideo113 wrote:Why would you say that the possibility of us being alone is small? I still can't believe such complex forms of life managed to form once, i am very doubtful about the possibility of it happening again in a significant time lapse/location for us humans. Maybe if you search far and wide you can find some sort of complex organic molecules, but the odds of them evolving into cellular forms of life is not high really. Consider all the conditions that you can have to meet in order to have an environment that can sustain life (water, temperature, atmosphere), consider that it takes millions of years for life to form (in those years anything could happen that could disrupt the formation of life), consider the complexity of life as we know it (honestly i see it pretty much as a miracle). Even if some sort of life was able to form it wouldn't necessarily have to become intelligent to the point where it can manipulate electromagnetic waves and send signals to the rest of the universe. I think we are very likely to become extinct before we can meet other forms of intelligent life.

Are we really complex and intelligent? You Seem to be only looking at this thought the scope of life must be similar to humans and the conditions for it must be similar to conditions on earth. I must agree that we are a long way off from being able to meet them by going to them, I guess we will have to "hope" they come to us.

The conditions must be similar to those on hearth because a lot of the biochemical reactions that allow life on this planet can only happen in a relatively narrow window of conditions, e.g. DNA molecules cannot stay in a double-helix conformation if the temperature is above 100 celsius degrees, while water is frozen below 0 degrees so life cannot develop in those conditions.

Garja wrote:Considering the fact that the universe keeps expanding it is infinitely small.

Considering the fact that the universe is finite right now, and will always stay finite, it is finitely small garja.

gamevideo113 wrote:The conditions must be similar to those on hearth because a lot of the biochemical reactions that allow life on this planet can only happen in a relatively narrow window of conditions, e.g. DNA molecules cannot stay in a double-helix conformation if the temperature is above 100 celsius degrees, while water is frozen below 0 degrees so life cannot develop in those conditions.

But isint that only for life we have found here?

It's much easier to narrow down the search and reasoning for similair lifeforms. There could be other ways life thrives but we know that it is at the very least possible on earthlike planets.

momuuu wrote:

Garja wrote:Considering the fact that the universe keeps expanding it is infinitely small.

Considering the fact that the universe is finite right now, and will always stay finite, it is finitely small garja.

What do you think is at the end of the universe?

momuuu wrote:It's much easier to narrow down the search and reasoning for similair lifeforms. There could be other ways life thrives but we know that it is at the very least possible on earthlike planets.

Would you agree that his because its easier it does not make it law, as some believe.

gustavusadolphus wrote:

momuuu wrote:

Garja wrote:Considering the fact that the universe keeps expanding it is infinitely small.

Considering the fact that the universe is finite right now, and will always stay finite, it is finitely small garja.

What do you think is at the end of the universe?

nothing.

gustavusadolphus wrote:

momuuu wrote:It's much easier to narrow down the search and reasoning for similair lifeforms. There could be other ways life thrives but we know that it is at the very least possible on earthlike planets.

Would you agree that his because its easier it does not make it law, as some believe.

Obviously. But making an estimate as to what the chance is that life forms similair to ours is the only estimate that can be made, and that estimate is an appropriate one. So sticking to that is just easier.

Can the nothing be a continuation of space but with nothing in it? And van something expand into the nothing? And if it it can is it Riley nothing or just empty space?

gustavusadolphus wrote:Can the nothing be a continuation of space but with nothing in it? And van something expand into the nothing? And if it it can is it Riley nothing or just empty space?

If I am not mistaken (general relativity and cosmology is pretty hard) there isn't even "empty space" out there. Basically the size of the universe is determined by space itself expanding. But I never really managed to grasp these concepts, I can only calculate stuff related to it.

gustavusadolphus wrote:

gamevideo113 wrote:The conditions must be similar to those on hearth because a lot of the biochemical reactions that allow life on this planet can only happen in a relatively narrow window of conditions, e.g. DNA molecules cannot stay in a double-helix conformation if the temperature is above 100 celsius degrees, while water is frozen below 0 degrees so life cannot develop in those conditions.

But isint that only for life we have found here?

By definition organisms (any form of life) have these characteristics:
1.They are made of cells;
2.They can be unicellular or multicellular;
3.They grow and develop;
4.They fulfill regulated metabolic reactions;
5.They are responsive to stimuli;
6.They are able to reproduce;
7.They have different levels of organization;
8.They transmit informations from one generation to the next one (DNA);
9.They evolve and adapt to the environment.

It's not that easy to "have life"

momuuu wrote:

gustavusadolphus wrote:Can the nothing be a continuation of space but with nothing in it? And van something expand into the nothing? And if it it can is it Riley nothing or just empty space?

If I am not mistaken (general relativity and cosmology is pretty hard) there isn't even "empty space" out there. Basically the size of the universe is determined by space itself expanding. But I never really managed to grasp these concepts, I can only calculate stuff related to it.

This is how I understand many laws in physics and science as farbas how the math lines up but when you think about how it physically exists it makes no sense. Time dialation is like this to me, the math is super easy to understand as well as a graph of it but when trying to understand to mechanical clocks clicking away that started at the same point coming back at different times makes no sense to me.

gamevideo113 wrote:

gustavusadolphus wrote:

gamevideo113 wrote:The conditions must be similar to those on hearth because a lot of the biochemical reactions that allow life on this planet can only happen in a relatively narrow window of conditions, e.g. DNA molecules cannot stay in a double-helix conformation if the temperature is above 100 celsius degrees, while water is frozen below 0 degrees so life cannot develop in those conditions.

But isint that only for life we have found here?

By definition organisms (any form of life) have these characteristics:
1.They are made of cells;
2.They can be unicellular or multicellular;
3.They grow and develop;
4.They fulfill regulated metabolic reactions;
5.They are responsive to stimuli;
6.They are able to reproduce;
7.They have different levels of organization;
8.They transmit informations from one generation to the next one (DNA)
9.They evolve and adapt to the environment.

It's not that easy to "have life"

Can this or has this definition changed?

I'm not sure about that but i'm pretty sure that anything that doesn't meet all of these criteria is not life (e.g. Viruses)

gamevideo113 wrote:I'm not sure about that but i'm pretty sure that anything that doesn't meet all of these criteria is not life (e.g. Viruses)

My point is this is the scope we operate in it limits us greatly. But I guess the line has to be drawn somwhere

This is the scope you have to operate in if you want to talk about life...

gustavusadolphus wrote:

momuuu wrote:

gustavusadolphus wrote:Can the nothing be a continuation of space but with nothing in it? And van something expand into the nothing? And if it it can is it Riley nothing or just empty space?

If I am not mistaken (general relativity and cosmology is pretty hard) there isn't even "empty space" out there. Basically the size of the universe is determined by space itself expanding. But I never really managed to grasp these concepts, I can only calculate stuff related to it.

This is how I understand many laws in physics and science as farbas how the math lines up but when you think about how it physically exists it makes no sense. Time dialation is like this to me, the math is super easy to understand as well as a graph of it but when trying to understand to mechanical clocks clicking away that started at the same point coming back at different times makes no sense to me.

You could take what's called the instrumentalist position: the physics model is merely a mathematical instrument with which phenomena can be described, categorized and some empiric predictions can be made. You could also take the realist position: The physical model actually describes what is happening and gives insight in the real way the world works. So if you would take the former position, you could say there could be space beyond the edge of the universe and that we're simply using general relativity as a mathematical tool, while if you favor the latter then there would be no space beyond the universe.

In many cases the realist position has in the past won. I'd also say theres no reason for our intuition to hold true in extremities of the universe (small or large scale) so the world doesn't have to make sense. There are many counterintuitive things, even in Newtonian physics (chaos for example) that just don't seem to be sensible. But that's just what things are like.

gamevideo113 wrote:This is the scope you have to operate in if you want to talk about life...

If we took cells out of the equation can robots or computer be considered life? I feel like they hit the mark in all other places or at least extremely close.