Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on May 26, 2013 2:52:34 GMT 5
Sillica based lifeforms could look totally different! Silcon is both rare in comparison to carbon and not nearly as capable of forming long and stable chains. Its highly unlikely for silcon based life to exist. The same can be said for carbon based life!  I doubt there in no silica based lifeforms anywhere, our tiny mammal brains are quite limited in the scope of all the endless possibilities! |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on May 26, 2013 3:02:01 GMT 5
Silcon is both rare in comparison to carbon and not nearly as capable of forming long and stable chains. Its highly unlikely for silcon based life to exist. The same can be said for carbon based life! I doubt there in no silica based lifeforms anywhere, our tiny mammal brains are quite limited in the scope of all the endless possibilities! umm no it cant be said for carbon. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on May 26, 2013 3:32:22 GMT 5
Why not? So far only one planet in the universe is known to harbor carbon-based life! For all we know, we could be in the minority! |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 26, 2013 3:41:20 GMT 5
Why not? So far only one planet in the universe is known to harbor carbon-based life! For all we know, we could be in the minority! even an infinitely small part in an infinite universe is still infinite. eg. the number of all prime numbers is only a fraction of that of all numbers, however both are infinite. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on May 26, 2013 8:39:56 GMT 5
But 1 is not infinite, it is a straight up integer. I'm not saying .000000000000001% of planets have carbon based life, just one, in the infinite reaches of the universe. If something really can be infinite...or not infinite. I think it is better to use our brains for more attainable goals! |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on May 26, 2013 10:28:24 GMT 5
But 1 is not infinite, it is a straight up integer. I'm not saying .000000000000001% of planets have carbon based life, just one, in the infinite reaches of the universe. If something really can be infinite...or not infinite. I think it is better to use our brains for more attainable goals! Im not following your logic, so you support the idea of silcon based life despite the fact that silicon is both rare compared to carbon and only able to make short, reactive and unstable chains but think carbon based life exists on only one planet?  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 26, 2013 14:31:34 GMT 5
But 1 is not infinite, it is a straight up integer. I'm not saying .000000000000001% of planets have carbon based life, just one, in the infinite reaches of the universe. If something really can be infinite...or not infinite. I think it is better to use our brains for more attainable goals! But 1 planet on which life is proven to exist, in an infinitely small part (the part we know) of the infinite universe. Hence 1*?=? Why should we assume we are the sole exception of a planet on which life exists, even tough probabilities predict there uncountably many? |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 26, 2013 18:38:50 GMT 5
This got quite philosophical. Anyway, do you believe a planet in the solar system of Proxima Centauri (or red dwarf stars in general) could support life? I have heard Gliese 581 g is the best candidate of life supporting planets and it belongs to a red dwarf star (Gliese 581), so I would like to hear your opinion about it, especially because there is a red dwarf star in the near of our sun (Proxima Centauri). |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 30, 2013 0:42:44 GMT 5
No idea, I'm not so knowledgeable on alien life and planets. But the point was a mathematical one, not a philosophical one.
?*1/?=?
Philosophical could be "what is life, why is just that?" lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2013 22:22:40 GMT 5
Aliens are pretty ~100% likely, in such a vast universe, it would be very foolish to assume that Earth is the only planet with life.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 17, 2013 15:42:33 GMT 5
Here is a paper I have found: arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2649.pdfIt seems like the planets KOI-1868.01, KOI-854.01, KOI-2418.01, KOI-2626.01, KOI-1422.02 are good candidates for supporting life. P.S. Here is a great video: Sadly, I can't find a lot of information in the internet. I have tried to search for some of these planets in google scholar and plos one, but without a lot of success. |
|
|
|
Post by DinosaurMichael on Jun 17, 2013 16:54:44 GMT 5
It's impossible for there to be just one planet with life in the whole universe. The universe is so big. It has to have life on other planets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Jun 18, 2013 2:42:44 GMT 5
Of course other life exists in the universe. There are billions of planets out there, only someone completely ignorant and shallow-minded would deny the existence of other creatures out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Jun 18, 2013 4:55:25 GMT 5
I heard some people claim it's impossible because all life needs water. When I explained to them all life as humans know it as of now required water (if even all of life we know) they simply ignored me and called me illogical, so i simply facepalmed and walked away.
Most people aren't up for change.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 25, 2013 20:14:49 GMT 5
As most people use the "infinity" argument, what about limiting to the observable universe (diameter of 93 billion light years)?
|
|
I doubt there in no silica based lifeforms anywhere, our tiny mammal brains are quite limited in the scope of all the endless possibilities!
