Discussion:
Life on Europa in scifi?
(too old to reply)
Robert Clark
2018-04-25 11:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
My opinion is we will soon launch missions to land on Europa and the other
water-bearing moons of the Solar System. Some methods it could be
accomplished in a low cost way are described here:

Sample Return Missions from Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Ceres, page 1.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/04/sample-return-missions-from-enceladus.html

Low cost Europa lander missions.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html

Scientists are increasingly coming to the opinion such water-bearing moons
are likely to harbor life. If so, then humanity will have to come to grips
with the idea of life on other worlds. How will we deal with that?

Arthur C. Clarke famously discussed the discovery of life on Europa in
"2010". And the recent film "Europa Report" did also.

However, I'm looking for more in depth examinations of the effect of the
discovery on life on Europa in science fiction. Things like, how we as
humanity would respond to the discovery? And, if Europa had intelligent
life, how would humans interact with them?

Anyone know of any stories like that?

Bob Clark

------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-stage-to-orbit was already shown possible 50 years ago
with the Titan II first stage.
In fact, contrary to popular belief SSTO's are actually easy.
Just use the most efficient engines and stages at the same time,
and the result will automatically be SSTO.
Blog: Http://Exoscientist.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-04-25 13:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <pbpoqn$ils$***@dont-email.me>,
Robert Clark <***@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> wrote:
>My opinion is we will soon launch missions to land on Europa and the other
>water-bearing moons of the Solar System. Some methods it could be
>accomplished in a low cost way are described here:
>
>Sample Return Missions from Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Ceres, page 1.
>https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/04/sample-return-missions-from-enceladus.html
>
>Low cost Europa lander missions.
>https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
>
>Scientists are increasingly coming to the opinion such water-bearing moons
>are likely to harbor life. If so, then humanity will have to come to grips
>with the idea of life on other worlds. How will we deal with that?
>
>Arthur C. Clarke famously discussed the discovery of life on Europa in
>"2010". And the recent film "Europa Report" did also.
>
>However, I'm looking for more in depth examinations of the effect of the
>discovery on life on Europa in science fiction. Things like, how we as
>humanity would respond to the discovery? And, if Europa had intelligent
>life, how would humans interact with them?
>
>Anyone know of any stories like that?

You mean, other than _2010_?

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Lynn McGuire
2018-04-25 19:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/25/2018 6:29 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
> My opinion is we will soon launch missions to land on Europa and the
> other water-bearing moons of the Solar System. Some methods it could be
> accomplished in a low cost way are described here:
>
> Sample Return Missions from Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Ceres, page 1.
> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/04/sample-return-missions-from-enceladus.html
>
>
> Low cost Europa lander missions.
> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
>
>
> Scientists are increasingly coming to the opinion such water-bearing
> moons are likely to harbor life. If so, then humanity will have to come
> to grips with the idea of life on other worlds. How will we deal with that?
>
> Arthur C. Clarke famously discussed the discovery of life on Europa in
> "2010". And the recent film "Europa Report" did also.
>
> However, I'm looking for more in depth examinations of the effect of the
> discovery on life on Europa in science fiction. Things like, how we as
> humanity would respond to the discovery? And, if Europa had intelligent
> life, how would humans interact with them?
>
> Anyone know of any stories like that?

Book number three of a very good five book series:
https://www.amazon.com/Portal-Eric-Flint/dp/1476736421/

Lynn
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-04-26 01:03:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:pbql89$qvj$***@dont-email.me:

> On 4/25/2018 6:29 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
>> My opinion is we will soon launch missions to land on Europa
>> and the other water-bearing moons of the Solar System. Some
>> methods it could be accomplished in a low cost way are
>> described here:
>>
>> Sample Return Missions from Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Ceres,
>> page 1.
>> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/04/sample-return-missions
>> -from-enceladus.html
>>
>>
>> Low cost Europa lander missions.
>> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander
>> -missions.html
>>
>>
>> Scientists are increasingly coming to the opinion such
>> water-bearing moons are likely to harbor life. If so, then
>> humanity will have to come to grips with the idea of life on
>> other worlds. How will we deal with that?
>>
>> Arthur C. Clarke famously discussed the discovery of life on
>> Europa in "2010". And the recent film "Europa Report" did also.
>>
>> However, I'm looking for more in depth examinations of the
>> effect of the discovery on life on Europa in science fiction.
>> Things like, how we as humanity would respond to the discovery?
>> And, if Europa had intelligent life, how would humans interact
>> with them?
>>
>> Anyone know of any stories like that?
>
> Book number three of a very good five book series:
> https://www.amazon.com/Portal-Eric-Flint/dp/1476736421/
>
I'm glad somebody mentioned that. I'll add an endorsement.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2018-04-26 01:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/25/18 3:34 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 4/25/2018 6:29 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
>> My opinion is we will soon launch missions to land on Europa and the
>> other water-bearing moons of the Solar System. Some methods it could
>> be accomplished in a low cost way are described here:
>>
>> Sample Return Missions from Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Ceres, page 1.
>> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/04/sample-return-missions-from-enceladus.html
>>
>>
>> Low cost Europa lander missions.
>> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
>>
>>
>> Scientists are increasingly coming to the opinion such water-bearing
>> moons are likely to harbor life. If so, then humanity will have to
>> come to grips with the idea of life on other worlds. How will we deal
>> with that?
>>
>> Arthur C. Clarke famously discussed the discovery of life on Europa in
>> "2010". And the recent film "Europa Report" did also.
>>
>> However, I'm looking for more in depth examinations of the effect of
>> the discovery on life on Europa in science fiction. Things like, how
>> we as humanity would respond to the discovery? And, if Europa had
>> intelligent life, how would humans interact with them?
>>
>> Anyone know of any stories like that?
>
> Book number three of a very good five book series:
> https://www.amazon.com/Portal-Eric-Flint/dp/1476736421/


And the "consequences" echo down through the Castaway books.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Robert Carnegie
2018-04-25 21:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Is this cheating?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter%27s_moons_in_fiction#Europa>

The meaning of life on Europa would differ from life elsewhere
mainly in that you could bring it home to put in an aquarium.
But, as in some stories referred to there, it might be not such
a good idea.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cachalot_%28novel%29>
isn't on Europa and involves Earth-type transplanted
(humans and) marine life forms... um: mainly??
Steve Dodds
2018-04-25 22:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/25/2018 5:29 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
> My opinion is we will soon launch missions to land on Europa and the
> other water-bearing moons of the Solar System. Some methods it could be
> accomplished in a low cost way are described here:
>
> Sample Return Missions from Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Ceres, page 1.
> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/04/sample-return-missions-from-enceladus.html
>
>
> Low cost Europa lander missions.
> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
>
>
> Scientists are increasingly coming to the opinion such water-bearing
> moons are likely to harbor life. If so, then humanity will have to come
> to grips with the idea of life on other worlds. How will we deal with that?
>
> Arthur C. Clarke famously discussed the discovery of life on Europa in
> "2010". And the recent film "Europa Report" did also.
>
> However, I'm looking for more in depth examinations of the effect of the
> discovery on life on Europa in science fiction. Things like, how we as
> humanity would respond to the discovery? And, if Europa had intelligent
> life, how would humans interact with them?
>
> Anyone know of any stories like that?
>
>   Bob Clark
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Single-stage-to-orbit was already shown possible 50 years ago
> with the Titan II first stage.
> In fact, contrary to popular belief SSTO's are actually easy.
> Just use the most efficient engines and stages at the same time,
> and the result will automatically be SSTO.
> Blog: Http://Exoscientist.blogspot.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------


Europa Report, not a book but a movie. Available on Netflix
William Elliot
2018-04-26 04:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Robert Clark wrote:

> Sample Return Missions from Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Ceres, page 1.
> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/04/sample-return-missions-from-enceladus.html
>
> Low cost Europa lander missions.
> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
>
> Scientists are increasingly coming to the opinion such water-bearing
> moons are likely to harbor life. If so, then humanity will have to
> come to grips with the idea of life on other worlds.

How could that ever be a problem?

> How will we deal with that?

Like everything else we get our hands on - exploit it, ruin it.
Your Name
2018-04-26 06:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-26 04:22:03 +0000, William Elliot said:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Robert Clark wrote:
>>
>> Sample Return Missions from Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Ceres, page 1.
>> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/04/sample-return-missions-from-enceladus.html
>>
>>
>> Low cost Europa lander missions.
>> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
>>
>> Scientists are increasingly coming to the opinion such water-bearing
>> moons are likely to harbor life. If so, then humanity will have to
>> come to grips with the idea of life on other worlds.
>
> How could that ever be a problem?

The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly. We have
no idea what other, non-Earth, living may or may not need. In some
cases water is probably poisonness to them.



>> How will we deal with that?
>
> Like everything else we get our hands on - exploit it, ruin it.

You forgot kill it. :-(
David Johnston
2018-04-26 14:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-26 12:27 AM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2018-04-26 04:22:03 +0000, William Elliot said:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Robert Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> Sample Return Missions from Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Ceres, page 1.
>>> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/04/sample-return-missions-from-enceladus.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Low cost Europa lander missions.
>>> https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Scientists are increasingly coming to the opinion such water-bearing
>>> moons are likely to harbor life. If so, then humanity will have to
>>> come to grips with the idea of life on other worlds.
>>
>> How could that ever be a problem?
>
> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
> life of any sort /must/ have water,

False. They know that water based life exists. They do not know that
any other kind of life exists so it's reasonable to consider liquid
water to be a positive indicator that life is possible. That does not
mean that they rule out the possibility of other bases for life. But
they have no idea how to look for it.

The real problem is the conflation of "life is possible" with "life is
likely".
Thomas Koenig
2018-04-27 05:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:

> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.

Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...

> We have
> no idea what other, non-Earth, living may or may not need. In some
> cases water is probably poisonness to them.

We know organic chemistry pretty well.
Your Name
2018-04-27 06:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>
>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>
> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...

All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
certainly completely different.



>> We have no idea what other, non-Earth, living may or may not need. In some
>> cases water is probably poisonness to them.
>
> We know organic chemistry pretty well.

We may know *Earth-based* organic chemistry "pretty well" ... we know
absolutely nothing about extraterrestrial organic chemistry. There are
very likely alien lifeforms that find water poisoness while happily
sipping away on a Sulphric-acid Cola and breathing arsenic gas.

Blinkering themselves to what they *THINK* they already know is what
too many scientists (and too many people in general) do well. They
can't accept that something might be different and not what they know,
and that hamstrings them from making some discoveries.

Scientists used to think nothing could live near "toxic" volcanic tubes
... yet they did discover life there when they bothered to look. Same
with deep caves, frozen land, deserts, etc., etc. Scientists used to
believe the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it ... until
someone decided to actually think otherwise and check into it.

Real science is about discovery, not blindly thinking you already know
it all and using tunnel vision to look at things.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-04-27 15:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>> moronically silly.
>>
>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low
>> energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows
>> for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>
> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
> almost certainly completely different.

I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the same no
matter what planet you're on.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Robert Woodward
2018-04-27 16:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
> news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>
> > On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
> >> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
> >>>
> >>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
> >>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
> >>> moronically silly.
> >>
> >> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
> >> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low
> >> energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows
> >> for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
> >> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
> >
> > All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
> > almost certainly completely different.
>
> I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the same no
> matter what planet you're on.

The chemical properties of carbon compounds (and everything else) will
be the same as well. The physical properties (e.g., the state and
density) could vary depending on air pressure and temperature. I would
suspect that a "heavy" Earth (i.e., solid body 6-10 times Earth's mass)
could have lakes of liquid carbon dioxide.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
‹-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Lynn McGuire
2018-04-27 17:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/27/2018 11:48 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>> news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>>
>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low
>>>> energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows
>>>> for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>>>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>
>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
>>> almost certainly completely different.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the same no
>> matter what planet you're on.
>
> The chemical properties of carbon compounds (and everything else) will
> be the same as well. The physical properties (e.g., the state and
> density) could vary depending on air pressure and temperature. I would
> suspect that a "heavy" Earth (i.e., solid body 6-10 times Earth's mass)
> could have lakes of liquid carbon dioxide.

That would require an extremely dense atmosphere of 6X or more of the
Earth's atmospheric pressure.

Lynn
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-04-27 18:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:pbvo10$7qi$***@dont-email.me:

> On 4/27/2018 11:48 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>> news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups,
>>>>> it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>>
>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms
>>>> are almost certainly completely different.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the
>>> same no matter what planet you're on.
>>
>> The chemical properties of carbon compounds (and everything
>> else) will be the same as well. The physical properties (e.g.,
>> the state and density) could vary depending on air pressure and
>> temperature. I would suspect that a "heavy" Earth (i.e., solid
>> body 6-10 times Earth's mass) could have lakes of liquid carbon
>> dioxide.
>
> That would require an extremely dense atmosphere of 6X or more
> of the Earth's atmospheric pressure.
>
Which may or may not accompany a higher planetary mass.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2018-04-28 02:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:52:29 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/27/2018 11:48 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>> news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low
>>>>> energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows
>>>>> for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>>>>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>>
>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
>>>> almost certainly completely different.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the same no
>>> matter what planet you're on.
>>
>> The chemical properties of carbon compounds (and everything else) will
>> be the same as well. The physical properties (e.g., the state and
>> density) could vary depending on air pressure and temperature. I would
>> suspect that a "heavy" Earth (i.e., solid body 6-10 times Earth's mass)
>> could have lakes of liquid carbon dioxide.
>
>That would require an extremely dense atmosphere of 6X or more of the
>Earth's atmospheric pressure.

Shouldn't be hard to achieve on a solid body 6-10 times Earth's mass.
Venus manages 90x Earth's atmospheric pressure with the same mass as
Earth.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-04-30 16:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:52:29 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 4/27/2018 11:48 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>>> news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving
>>>>>> groups, it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves
>>>>>> salts...
>>>>>
>>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms
>>>>> are almost certainly completely different.
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the
>>>> same no matter what planet you're on.
>>>
>>> The chemical properties of carbon compounds (and everything
>>> else) will be the same as well. The physical properties (e.g.,
>>> the state and density) could vary depending on air pressure
>>> and temperature. I would suspect that a "heavy" Earth (i.e.,
>>> solid body 6-10 times Earth's mass) could have lakes of liquid
>>> carbon dioxide.
>>
>>That would require an extremely dense atmosphere of 6X or more
>>of the Earth's atmospheric pressure.
>
> Shouldn't be hard to achieve on a solid body 6-10 times Earth's
> mass. Venus manages 90x Earth's atmospheric pressure with the
> same mass as Earth.
>
Which is to say, the amount of atmosphere present isn't necessarily
connected to the mass of the planet. In either direction.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-04-27 18:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Robert Woodward <***@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:robertaw-***@news.individual.net:

> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>> news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>> > On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>> >> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>> >>>
>> >>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>> >>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>> >>> moronically silly.
>> >>
>> >> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>> >> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>> >> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>> >> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups,
>> >> it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>> >
>> > All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms
>> > are almost certainly completely different.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the
>> same no matter what planet you're on.
>
> The chemical properties of carbon compounds (and everything
> else) will be the same as well. The physical properties (e.g.,
> the state and density) could vary depending on air pressure and
> temperature. I would suspect that a "heavy" Earth (i.e., solid
> body 6-10 times Earth's mass) could have lakes of liquid carbon
> dioxide.
>
Pressure and temperature may allow that. Why on earth you think the
planet's mass would is beyond me.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-04-27 18:48:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/27/2018 11:01 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Robert Woodward <***@drizzle.com> wrote in
> news:robertaw-***@news.individual.net:
>
>> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>> news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups,
>>>>> it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>>
>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms
>>>> are almost certainly completely different.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the
>>> same no matter what planet you're on.
>>
>> The chemical properties of carbon compounds (and everything
>> else) will be the same as well. The physical properties (e.g.,
>> the state and density) could vary depending on air pressure and
>> temperature. I would suspect that a "heavy" Earth (i.e., solid
>> body 6-10 times Earth's mass) could have lakes of liquid carbon
>> dioxide.
>>
> Pressure and temperature may allow that. Why on earth you think the
> planet's mass would is beyond me.
>
I suspect that a larger, denser planet would have a higher surface
gravity which would help increase atmospheric density and therefore
pressure.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-04-27 19:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote in
news:pbvraf$vqb$***@dont-email.me:

> On 4/27/2018 11:01 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Robert Woodward <***@drizzle.com> wrote in
>> news:robertaw-***@news.individual.net:
>>
>>> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>>> news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving
>>>>>> groups, it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves
>>>>>> salts...
>>>>>
>>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms
>>>>> are almost certainly completely different.
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the
>>>> same no matter what planet you're on.
>>>
>>> The chemical properties of carbon compounds (and everything
>>> else) will be the same as well. The physical properties (e.g.,
>>> the state and density) could vary depending on air pressure
>>> and temperature. I would suspect that a "heavy" Earth (i.e.,
>>> solid body 6-10 times Earth's mass) could have lakes of liquid
>>> carbon dioxide.
>>>
>> Pressure and temperature may allow that. Why on earth you think
>> the planet's mass would is beyond me.
>>
> I suspect that a larger, denser planet would have a higher
> surface gravity which would help increase atmospheric density
> and therefore pressure.
>
Certainly possible, even likely, but not guaranteed. I suspect
there are at least some "super earths" with no atmosphere at all.
And Bobbie implied it would be due to the higher mass, not
secondary effects that may or may not be present.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-04-27 20:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/27/2018 12:45 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote in
> news:pbvraf$vqb$***@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 4/27/2018 11:01 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Robert Woodward <***@drizzle.com> wrote in
>>> news:robertaw-***@news.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>>>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>>>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving
>>>>>>> groups, it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves
>>>>>>> salts...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms
>>>>>> are almost certainly completely different.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the
>>>>> same no matter what planet you're on.
>>>>
>>>> The chemical properties of carbon compounds (and everything
>>>> else) will be the same as well. The physical properties (e.g.,
>>>> the state and density) could vary depending on air pressure
>>>> and temperature. I would suspect that a "heavy" Earth (i.e.,
>>>> solid body 6-10 times Earth's mass) could have lakes of liquid
>>>> carbon dioxide.
>>>>
>>> Pressure and temperature may allow that. Why on earth you think
>>> the planet's mass would is beyond me.
>>>
>> I suspect that a larger, denser planet would have a higher
>> surface gravity which would help increase atmospheric density
>> and therefore pressure.
>>
> Certainly possible, even likely, but not guaranteed. I suspect
> there are at least some "super earths" with no atmosphere at all.
> And Bobbie implied it would be due to the higher mass, not
> secondary effects that may or may not be present.
>
Astronomers are pretty sure they've found a few Jovian size planets (at
least they started that size) that have no atmosphere so I don't see why
close in SuperEarths can't suffer the same fate. ;)

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Your Name
2018-04-27 21:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-27 16:48:23 +0000, Robert Woodward said:
> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>> news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>>
>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low
>>>> energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows
>>>> for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>>>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>
>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
>>> almost certainly completely different.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the same no
>> matter what planet you're on.
>
> The chemical properties of carbon compounds (and everything else) will
> be the same as well. The physical properties (e.g., the state and
> density) could vary depending on air pressure and temperature. I would
> suspect that a "heavy" Earth (i.e., solid body 6-10 times Earth's mass)
> could have lakes of liquid carbon dioxide.

But aliens do not have to be carbon-based either. :-\
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-04-27 22:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
news:pc0561$vcj$***@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 2018-04-27 16:48:23 +0000, Robert Woodward said:
>> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>> news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups,
>>>>> it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>>
>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms
>>>> are almost certainly completely different.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the
>>> same no matter what planet you're on.
>>
>> The chemical properties of carbon compounds (and everything
>> else) will be the same as well. The physical properties (e.g.,
>> the state and density) could vary depending on air pressure and
>> temperature. I would suspect that a "heavy" Earth (i.e., solid
>> body 6-10 times Earth's mass) could have lakes of liquid carbon
>> dioxide.
>
> But aliens do not have to be carbon-based either. :-\
>
But, given the chemical properties that we do know about, probably
will be, and will probably breathe oxygen, and will probably need a
fairly wet environment to evolve.

Yeah, there are other possibilities, but there's zero reason to
expect them to be common, other than wishful thinking and a sincere
desire to be more clever than people who actually know what they're
talking about.

(And given the limited resources for the search, it only makes
sense to look for stuff that we know what it looks like, rather
than stuff we have no idea if it's even possible.)

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2018-04-28 02:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 09:37:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>On 2018-04-27 16:48:23 +0000, Robert Woodward said:
>> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>> news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low
>>>>> energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows
>>>>> for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>>>>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>>
>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
>>>> almost certainly completely different.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the same no
>>> matter what planet you're on.
>>
>> The chemical properties of carbon compounds (and everything else) will
>> be the same as well. The physical properties (e.g., the state and
>> density) could vary depending on air pressure and temperature. I would
>> suspect that a "heavy" Earth (i.e., solid body 6-10 times Earth's mass)
>> could have lakes of liquid carbon dioxide.
>
>But aliens do not have to be carbon-based either. :-\

So tell us what else would work and support your argument.
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-04-28 05:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 09:37:08 +1200, Your Name
> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2018-04-27 16:48:23 +0000, Robert Woodward said:
>>> In article <***@69.16.179.43>,
>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>>> news:pbugk7$4m8$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving
>>>>>> groups, it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves
>>>>>> salts...
>>>>>
>>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms
>>>>> are almost certainly completely different.
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure the chemical properties of water will be the
>>>> same no matter what planet you're on.
>>>
>>> The chemical properties of carbon compounds (and everything
>>> else) will be the same as well. The physical properties (e.g.,
>>> the state and density) could vary depending on air pressure
>>> and temperature. I would suspect that a "heavy" Earth (i.e.,
>>> solid body 6-10 times Earth's mass) could have lakes of liquid
>>> carbon dioxide.
>>
>>But aliens do not have to be carbon-based either. :-\
>
> So tell us what else would work and support your argument.
>
There's been speculation that, chemically speaking, silicon might
work. (There's also been criticism of that speculation, of course.
Until we find a silicon based life form, we won't know. And if we
never do, we'll never know.)

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Kevrob
2018-04-28 14:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 1:47:59 AM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:

> There's been speculation that, chemically speaking, silicon might
> work. (There's also been criticism of that speculation, of course.
> Until we find a silicon based life form, we won't know. And if we
> never do, we'll never know.)

ObTrek: "devil In the dark" - the Horta.

"I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!" - Leonard McCoy, MD
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-04-28 19:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:b6b9e630-ed74-4247-ad4b-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 1:47:59 AM UTC-4, Ninapenda
> Jibini wrote:
>
>> There's been speculation that, chemically speaking, silicon
>> might work. (There's also been criticism of that speculation,
>> of course. Until we find a silicon based life form, we won't
>> know. And if we never do, we'll never know.)
>
> ObTrek: "devil In the dark" - the Horta.

If you consider Star Trek to be serious scientific speculation, you
really need a keeper to prevent you from hurting youself.
>
> "I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!" - Leonard McCoy, MD
>



--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Kevrob
2018-04-28 20:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 3:15:22 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote in
> news:b6b9e630-ed74-4247-ad4b-***@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 1:47:59 AM UTC-4, Ninapenda
> > Jibini wrote:
> >
> >> There's been speculation that, chemically speaking, silicon
> >> might work. (There's also been criticism of that speculation,
> >> of course. Until we find a silicon based life form, we won't
> >> know. And if we never do, we'll never know.)
> >
> > ObTrek: "devil In the dark" - the Horta.
>
> If you consider Star Trek to be serious scientific speculation, you
> really need a keeper to prevent you from hurting youself.
> >
> > "I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!" - Leonard McCoy, MD

It's just an example of how long, if not longer, SF has
considered Si-life a possibility.

Maybe these links would be of more interest?

Could silicon be the basis for alien life forms,
just as carbon is on Earth?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-silicon-be-the-basi/

MoreObSF: the Planet Uller stories in the Twayne Triplets series?
starting w/Fletcher Pratt's "Petrified Planet," 1952

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?34374

Kevin R


and...

Living Cells Bind Silicon and Carbon for the First Time

A modified bacterial enzyme is taught to make bonds that
evolution avoids

By Davide Castelvecchi, Nature magazine on November 24, 2016

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/living-cells-bind-silicon-and-carbon-for-the-first-time/
Greg Goss
2018-04-29 15:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote in
>> > "I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!" - Leonard McCoy, MD
>
>It's just an example of how long, if not longer, SF has
>considered Si-life a possibility.
>
>Maybe these links would be of more interest?
>
>Could silicon be the basis for alien life forms,
>just as carbon is on Earth?
>
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-silicon-be-the-basi/
>
>MoreObSF: the Planet Uller stories in the Twayne Triplets series?
>starting w/Fletcher Pratt's "Petrified Planet," 1952
>
>http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?34374

The idea of silicon life was fairly routine in sf before Trek.

One of Asimov's "Urth" stories featuring a "siliconey" found on an
asteroid that ate rocks and lived on radioactivity comes to mind.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2018-04-29 15:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 09:24:32 -0600, Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:

>Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote in
>>> > "I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!" - Leonard McCoy, MD
>>
>>It's just an example of how long, if not longer, SF has
>>considered Si-life a possibility.
>>
>>Maybe these links would be of more interest?
>>
>>Could silicon be the basis for alien life forms,
>>just as carbon is on Earth?
>>
>>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-silicon-be-the-basi/
>>
>>MoreObSF: the Planet Uller stories in the Twayne Triplets series?
>>starting w/Fletcher Pratt's "Petrified Planet," 1952
>>
>>http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?34374
>
>The idea of silicon life was fairly routine in sf before Trek.
>
>One of Asimov's "Urth" stories featuring a "siliconey" found on an
>asteroid that ate rocks and lived on radioactivity comes to mind.

I remember reading some story or other in which a silicon-based
critter called a "chlordelcus" was an annoyance because they kept
trying to eat the dome over the settlement.

Not sure how plausible that is, it would be kind of like humans trying
to eat CO2. But perhaps it was photosynthetic and needed to consume
silicon dioxide.
Default User
2018-04-30 00:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Greg Goss wrote:

> The idea of silicon life was fairly routine in sf before Trek.
>
> One of Asimov's "Urth" stories featuring a "siliconey" found on an
> asteroid that ate rocks and lived on radioactivity comes to mind.

A silicon-based creature is seen in Weinbaum's "A Martian Odyssey".


Brian
Paul Colquhoun
2018-04-27 08:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
| On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
|> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
|>>
|>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
|>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
|>
|> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
|> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
|> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
|> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
|> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
|
| All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
| certainly completely different.


No, chemistry and physics are the same everywhere. Water will have the
same properties throughout the universe.


|>> We have no idea what other, non-Earth, living may or may not need. In some
|>> cases water is probably poisonness to them.
|>
|> We know organic chemistry pretty well.
|
| We may know *Earth-based* organic chemistry "pretty well" ... we know
| absolutely nothing about extraterrestrial organic chemistry. There are
| very likely alien lifeforms that find water poisoness while happily
| sipping away on a Sulphric-acid Cola and breathing arsenic gas.


Again, chemistry is universal.


| Blinkering themselves to what they *THINK* they already know is what
| too many scientists (and too many people in general) do well. They
| can't accept that something might be different and not what they know,
| and that hamstrings them from making some discoveries.
|
| Scientists used to think nothing could live near "toxic" volcanic tubes
| ... yet they did discover life there when they bothered to look. Same
| with deep caves, frozen land, deserts, etc., etc. Scientists used to
| believe the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it ... until
| someone decided to actually think otherwise and check into it.
|
| Real science is about discovery, not blindly thinking you already know
| it all and using tunnel vision to look at things.


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
Your Name
2018-04-28 00:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-27 08:01:48 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> | On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
> |> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
> |>>
> |>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
> |>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
> |>
> |> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
> |> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
> |> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
> |> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
> |> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
> |
> | All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
> | certainly completely different.
>
> No, chemistry and physics are the same everywhere. Water will have the
> same properties throughout the universe.

Oh for God's sake ... water is the same everywhere, but *life* is not.
The point has nothing to do with water itself.

Earth-based life may rely on water (and even that's dubious in some
cases), but alien life does *NOT* have to rely on water. Too many
scientists believe alien life does have to have water. They can't
understand that life on other planets may not have anything to do with
water. They stupidly look at only planets and moons with water because
they're blinkered.
David Johnston
2018-04-28 02:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-27 6:32 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2018-04-27 08:01:48 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>> wrote:
>> | On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>> |> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>> |>>
>> |>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief
>> that
>> |>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>> |>
>> |> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>> |> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>> |> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>> |> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>> |> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>> |
>> | All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
>> | certainly completely different.
>>
>> No, chemistry and physics are the same everywhere. Water will have the
>> same properties throughout the universe.
>
> Oh for God's sake ... water is the same everywhere, but *life* is not.
> The point has nothing to do with water itself.
>
> Earth-based life may rely on water (and even that's dubious in some
> cases),

No it isn't.

but alien life does *NOT* have to rely on water. Too many
> scientists believe alien life does have to have water. They can't
> understand that life on other planets may not have anything to do with
> water. They stupidly look at only planets and moons with water because
> they're blinkered.

What else would they look for?

>
>
J. Clarke
2018-04-28 02:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 12:32:38 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>On 2018-04-27 08:01:48 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> | On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>> |> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>> |>>
>> |>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
>> |>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>> |>
>> |> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>> |> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>> |> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>> |> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>> |> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>> |
>> | All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
>> | certainly completely different.
>>
>> No, chemistry and physics are the same everywhere. Water will have the
>> same properties throughout the universe.
>
>Oh for God's sake ... water is the same everywhere, but *life* is not.
>The point has nothing to do with water itself.
>
>Earth-based life may rely on water (and even that's dubious in some
>cases), but alien life does *NOT* have to rely on water. Too many
>scientists believe alien life does have to have water. They can't
>understand that life on other planets may not have anything to do with
>water. They stupidly look at only planets and moons with water because
>they're blinkered.

They've looked a lot harder at Mars and Venus than they have at any
other place that has water, so your argument falls flat.
Your Name
2018-04-28 02:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-28 02:07:34 +0000, J. Clarke said:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 12:32:38 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2018-04-27 08:01:48 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>> | On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>> |> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>> |>>
>>> |>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
>>> |>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>>> |>
>>> |> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>>> |> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>>> |> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>>> |> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>>> |> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>> |
>>> | All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
>>> | certainly completely different.
>>>
>>> No, chemistry and physics are the same everywhere. Water will have the
>>> same properties throughout the universe.
>>
>> Oh for God's sake ... water is the same everywhere, but *life* is not.
>> The point has nothing to do with water itself.
>>
>> Earth-based life may rely on water (and even that's dubious in some
>> cases), but alien life does *NOT* have to rely on water. Too many
>> scientists believe alien life does have to have water. They can't
>> understand that life on other planets may not have anything to do with
>> water. They stupidly look at only planets and moons with water because
>> they're blinkered.
>
> They've looked a lot harder at Mars and Venus than they have at any
> other place that has water, so your argument falls flat.

And on Mars they looked mostly, if not completely, where they were
hoping to find water. They're looking at Europa (as in the topic title)
because there's water.
J. Clarke
2018-04-28 04:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:26:41 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>On 2018-04-28 02:07:34 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 12:32:38 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-27 08:01:48 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>> | On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>> |> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>> |>>
>>>> |>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
>>>> |>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>>>> |>
>>>> |> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>>>> |> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>>>> |> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>>>> |> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>>>> |> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>> |
>>>> | All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
>>>> | certainly completely different.
>>>>
>>>> No, chemistry and physics are the same everywhere. Water will have the
>>>> same properties throughout the universe.
>>>
>>> Oh for God's sake ... water is the same everywhere, but *life* is not.
>>> The point has nothing to do with water itself.
>>>
>>> Earth-based life may rely on water (and even that's dubious in some
>>> cases), but alien life does *NOT* have to rely on water. Too many
>>> scientists believe alien life does have to have water. They can't
>>> understand that life on other planets may not have anything to do with
>>> water. They stupidly look at only planets and moons with water because
>>> they're blinkered.
>>
>> They've looked a lot harder at Mars and Venus than they have at any
>> other place that has water, so your argument falls flat.
>
>And on Mars they looked mostly, if not completely, where they were
>hoping to find water.

OK, (and nobody "help" him please) give us an exhaustive list of the
places explored on Mars and then tell us which ones were believed at
the time to contain water.

>They're looking at Europa (as in the topic title)
>because there's water.

When you learn some basic science get back to us.

They aren't looking very _hard_ at it. Nothing has landed there for
example.
David DeLaney
2018-04-29 09:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-28, J Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:26:41 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>>They're looking at Europa (as in the topic title)
>>because there's water.
>
> When you learn some basic science get back to us.

He's got the basics down. It's true that a hydrogen atmosphere COULD also
work with carbon/oxygen/hydrogen compounds, with methane as the solute...
but not really in the temperature ranges we're usually looking in.

> They aren't looking very _hard_ at it. Nothing has landed there for
> example.

ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE

Dave, the first rule of Spaceship Club is...
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
J. Clarke
2018-04-29 13:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 04:01:15 -0500, David DeLaney
<***@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 2018-04-28, J Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:26:41 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>>>They're looking at Europa (as in the topic title)
>>>because there's water.
>>
>> When you learn some basic science get back to us.
>
>He's got the basics down. It's true that a hydrogen atmosphere COULD also
>work with carbon/oxygen/hydrogen compounds, with methane as the solute...
>but not really in the temperature ranges we're usually looking in.

Read the entire thread. And don't assume that a statement is a
response only to the sentence immediately preceding it.

>> They aren't looking very _hard_ at it. Nothing has landed there for
>> example.
>
>ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE
>
>Dave, the first rule of Spaceship Club is...
Robert Carnegie
2018-04-28 12:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 28 April 2018 00:38:30 UTC+1, Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> | On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
> |> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
> |>>
> |>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
> |>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
> |>
> |> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
> |> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
> |> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
> |> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
> |> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
> |
> | All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
> | certainly completely different.
>
>
> No, chemistry and physics are the same everywhere. Water will have the
> same properties throughout the universe.
>
>
> |>> We have no idea what other, non-Earth, living may or may not need. In some
> |>> cases water is probably poisonness to them.
> |>
> |> We know organic chemistry pretty well.
> |
> | We may know *Earth-based* organic chemistry "pretty well" ... we know
> | absolutely nothing about extraterrestrial organic chemistry. There are
> | very likely alien lifeforms that find water poisoness while happily
> | sipping away on a Sulphric-acid Cola and breathing arsenic gas.
>
>
> Again, chemistry is universal.

Chemistry depends a lot on temperature, pressure, and on
what element and molecules are present. Space probes have
discovered chemical reactions that were not suspected in theory.

As for water, on Titan it's a type of rock - although that
isn't in the "not suspected" category.
J. Clarke
2018-04-28 13:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 05:36:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<***@excite.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 28 April 2018 00:38:30 UTC+1, Paul Colquhoun wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> | On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>> |> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>> |>>
>> |>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
>> |>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>> |>
>> |> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>> |> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>> |> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>> |> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>> |> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>> |
>> | All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
>> | certainly completely different.
>>
>>
>> No, chemistry and physics are the same everywhere. Water will have the
>> same properties throughout the universe.
>>
>>
>> |>> We have no idea what other, non-Earth, living may or may not need. In some
>> |>> cases water is probably poisonness to them.
>> |>
>> |> We know organic chemistry pretty well.
>> |
>> | We may know *Earth-based* organic chemistry "pretty well" ... we know
>> | absolutely nothing about extraterrestrial organic chemistry. There are
>> | very likely alien lifeforms that find water poisoness while happily
>> | sipping away on a Sulphric-acid Cola and breathing arsenic gas.
>>
>>
>> Again, chemistry is universal.
>
>Chemistry depends a lot on temperature, pressure, and on
>what element and molecules are present.

What reactions take place and how fast have such dependence. That
doesn't mean that chemistry is "different".

>Space probes have
>discovered chemical reactions that were not suspected in theory.

Which chemical reactions were those?

>As for water, on Titan it's a type of rock - although that
>isn't in the "not suspected" category.
Robert Carnegie
2018-04-28 17:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 28 April 2018 14:51:19 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 05:36:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <***@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, 28 April 2018 00:38:30 UTC+1, Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >> | On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
> >> |> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
> >> |>>
> >> |>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
> >> |>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
> >> |>
> >> |> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
> >> |> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
> >> |> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
> >> |> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
> >> |> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
> >> |
> >> | All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
> >> | certainly completely different.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, chemistry and physics are the same everywhere. Water will have the
> >> same properties throughout the universe.
> >>
> >>
> >> |>> We have no idea what other, non-Earth, living may or may not need. In some
> >> |>> cases water is probably poisonness to them.
> >> |>
> >> |> We know organic chemistry pretty well.
> >> |
> >> | We may know *Earth-based* organic chemistry "pretty well" ... we know
> >> | absolutely nothing about extraterrestrial organic chemistry. There are
> >> | very likely alien lifeforms that find water poisoness while happily
> >> | sipping away on a Sulphric-acid Cola and breathing arsenic gas.
> >>
> >>
> >> Again, chemistry is universal.
> >
> >Chemistry depends a lot on temperature, pressure, and on
> >what element and molecules are present.
>
> What reactions take place and how fast have such dependence. That
> doesn't mean that chemistry is "different".
>
> >Space probes have
> >discovered chemical reactions that were not suspected in theory.
>
> Which chemical reactions were those?
>
> >As for water, on Titan it's a type of rock - although that
> >isn't in the "not suspected" category.

My main example is the superoxide found on Mars and believed to
have produced a false positive result in the Viking probe test
for life. Apparently, the superoxide exists because the surfce
of Nars gets full-power ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

Otherwise I think there seems to be about one genuine surprise
in space chemistry per year, such as in the gas giant moons
or supernova products, but I haven't kept score.
J. Clarke
2018-04-28 19:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 10:59:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<***@excite.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 28 April 2018 14:51:19 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 05:36:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <***@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, 28 April 2018 00:38:30 UTC+1, Paul Colquhoun wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> >> | On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>> >> |> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>> >> |>>
>> >> |>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
>> >> |>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>> >> |>
>> >> |> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>> >> |> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>> >> |> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>> >> |> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>> >> |> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>> >> |
>> >> | All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
>> >> | certainly completely different.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, chemistry and physics are the same everywhere. Water will have the
>> >> same properties throughout the universe.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> |>> We have no idea what other, non-Earth, living may or may not need. In some
>> >> |>> cases water is probably poisonness to them.
>> >> |>
>> >> |> We know organic chemistry pretty well.
>> >> |
>> >> | We may know *Earth-based* organic chemistry "pretty well" ... we know
>> >> | absolutely nothing about extraterrestrial organic chemistry. There are
>> >> | very likely alien lifeforms that find water poisoness while happily
>> >> | sipping away on a Sulphric-acid Cola and breathing arsenic gas.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Again, chemistry is universal.
>> >
>> >Chemistry depends a lot on temperature, pressure, and on
>> >what element and molecules are present.
>>
>> What reactions take place and how fast have such dependence. That
>> doesn't mean that chemistry is "different".
>>
>> >Space probes have
>> >discovered chemical reactions that were not suspected in theory.
>>
>> Which chemical reactions were those?
>>
>> >As for water, on Titan it's a type of rock - although that
>> >isn't in the "not suspected" category.
>
>My main example is the superoxide found on Mars and believed to
>have produced a false positive result in the Viking probe test
>for life. Apparently, the superoxide exists because the surfce
>of Nars gets full-power ultraviolet radiation from the sun.
>
>Otherwise I think there seems to be about one genuine surprise
>in space chemistry per year, such as in the gas giant moons
>or supernova products, but I haven't kept score.

There has only been one "space probe" that visited a gas giant moon
and sending "space probes" to supernova remnants is far beyond our
capability, so I don't think that any such discoveries are due to
"space probes".

And the superoxide on Mars isn't "unsuspected in theory", it's just
that nobody thought to look for it. It didn't require any fundamental
changes in chemistry.
Robert Carnegie
2018-04-28 20:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 28 April 2018 20:15:30 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 10:59:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <***@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, 28 April 2018 14:51:19 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 05:36:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> <***@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Saturday, 28 April 2018 00:38:30 UTC+1, Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >> >> | On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
> >> >> |> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
> >> >> |>>
> >> >> |>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
> >> >> |>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
> >> >> |>
> >> >> |> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
> >> >> |> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
> >> >> |> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
> >> >> |> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
> >> >> |> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
> >> >> |
> >> >> | All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
> >> >> | certainly completely different.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> No, chemistry and physics are the same everywhere. Water will have the
> >> >> same properties throughout the universe.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> |>> We have no idea what other, non-Earth, living may or may not need. In some
> >> >> |>> cases water is probably poisonness to them.
> >> >> |>
> >> >> |> We know organic chemistry pretty well.
> >> >> |
> >> >> | We may know *Earth-based* organic chemistry "pretty well" ... we know
> >> >> | absolutely nothing about extraterrestrial organic chemistry. There are
> >> >> | very likely alien lifeforms that find water poisoness while happily
> >> >> | sipping away on a Sulphric-acid Cola and breathing arsenic gas.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Again, chemistry is universal.
> >> >
> >> >Chemistry depends a lot on temperature, pressure, and on
> >> >what element and molecules are present.
> >>
> >> What reactions take place and how fast have such dependence. That
> >> doesn't mean that chemistry is "different".
> >>
> >> >Space probes have
> >> >discovered chemical reactions that were not suspected in theory.
> >>
> >> Which chemical reactions were those?
> >>
> >> >As for water, on Titan it's a type of rock - although that
> >> >isn't in the "not suspected" category.
> >
> >My main example is the superoxide found on Mars and believed to
> >have produced a false positive result in the Viking probe test
> >for life. Apparently, the superoxide exists because the surfce
> >of Nars gets full-power ultraviolet radiation from the sun.
> >
> >Otherwise I think there seems to be about one genuine surprise
> >in space chemistry per year, such as in the gas giant moons
> >or supernova products, but I haven't kept score.
>
> There has only been one "space probe" that visited a gas giant moon
> and sending "space probes" to supernova remnants is far beyond our
> capability, so I don't think that any such discoveries are due to
> "space probes".
>
> And the superoxide on Mars isn't "unsuspected in theory", it's just
> that nobody thought to look for it. It didn't require any fundamental
> changes in chemistry.

Whatever, it came as a surprise. Now imagine a Martian life form
that feeds on superoxide.

I'm counting orbiting space probes.
<https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/3020/the-moon-with-the-plume/>

The supernova products come to us. Formation of diamond
came to light recently, I think.
J. Clarke
2018-04-28 02:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
>>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>>
>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>
>All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
>certainly completely different.

Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are different on
other planets, a notion which you will need to support with something
beyond opinion, it will be true on any planet.

>>> We have no idea what other, non-Earth, living may or may not need. In some
>>> cases water is probably poisonness to them.
>>
>> We know organic chemistry pretty well.
>
>We may know *Earth-based* organic chemistry "pretty well" ... we know
>absolutely nothing about extraterrestrial organic chemistry. There are
>very likely alien lifeforms that find water poisoness while happily
>sipping away on a Sulphric-acid Cola and breathing arsenic gas.

Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon. It will be the same on
any planet.

>Blinkering themselves to what they *THINK* they already know is what
>too many scientists (and too many people in general) do well. They
>can't accept that something might be different and not what they know,
>and that hamstrings them from making some discoveries.

Design an analogue to DNA that actually works that is not
carbon-based. Go ahead, do it. When you have then you can talk about
how other life forms will not be carbon based.
>
>Scientists used to think nothing could live near "toxic" volcanic tubes
>... yet they did discover life there when they bothered to look. Same
>with deep caves, frozen land, deserts, etc., etc.

Which scientists believed this? And did they discover anything which
was not based on organic chemistry?

>Scientists used to
>believe the Earth was flat

Name one.

>and the Sun revolved around it ... until
>someone decided to actually think otherwise and check into it.


>Real science is about discovery, not blindly thinking you already know
>it all and using tunnel vision to look at things.

Real science, however, is not about accepting the opinion of some
netloon who doesn't even know the definition of "organic chemistry" as
being fact.
>
Your Name
2018-04-28 02:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>
>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
>>>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>>>
>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>>> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>>> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>>> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>
>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
>> certainly completely different.
>
> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are different on
> other planets, a notion which you will need to support with something
> beyond opinion, it will be true on any planet.

Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet fixate
on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual point. Believe
whatever crap you want. :-\
J. Clarke
2018-04-28 04:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
>>>>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>>>>
>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>>>> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>>>> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>>>> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>>>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>
>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
>>> certainly completely different.
>>
>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are different on
>> other planets, a notion which you will need to support with something
>> beyond opinion, it will be true on any planet.
>
>Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet fixate
>on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual point. Believe
>whatever crap you want. :-\

So to you physics is "crap".

<plonk>
Your Name
2018-04-28 06:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
>>>>>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>>>>> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>>>>> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>>>>> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>>>>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>>
>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
>>>> certainly completely different.
>>>
>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are different on
>>> other planets, a notion which you will need to support with something
>>> beyond opinion, it will be true on any planet.
>>
>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet fixate
>> on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual point. Believe
>> whatever crap you want. :-\
>
> So to you physics is "crap".
>
> <plonk>

If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly the
same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.
David Johnston
2018-04-28 07:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-28 12:37 AM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>>>>>> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>>>>>> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>>>>>> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>>>>>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>>>
>>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
>>>>> certainly completely different.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are different on
>>>> other planets, a notion which you will need to support with something
>>>> beyond opinion, it will be true on any planet.
>>>
>>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet fixate
>>> on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual point. Believe
>>> whatever crap you want.  :-\
>>
>> So to you physics is "crap".
>>
>> <plonk>
>
> If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly the
> same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
> requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.

Things have to be completely different or they must be exactly the same?


>
>
>
Dimensional Traveler
2018-04-28 16:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/27/2018 11:37 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>>>>>> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>>>>>> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>>>>>> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>>>>>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>>>
>>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
>>>>> certainly completely different.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are different on
>>>> other planets, a notion which you will need to support with something
>>>> beyond opinion, it will be true on any planet.
>>>
>>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet fixate
>>> on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual point. Believe
>>> whatever crap you want.  :-\
>>
>> So to you physics is "crap".
>>
>> <plonk>
>
> If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly the
> same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
> requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.
>
How _exactly_ should we be looking for life that we don't recognize or
understand? Water-dependent carbon-based life as we currently
understand it has certain effects on the planet. Certain specific
changes in the atmosphere being a big one.

So please enlighten us, what atmospheric chemical traces do we need to
be looking for on exo-planets for silicon based life? How about
hydrogen based life in Jovian planets? How do we detect that? What
about life based on a very short half-life transuranic radioactive
element that doesn't exist on Earth anymore?


--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-04-28 19:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
news:pc14ru$7pe$***@adenine.netfront.net:

> On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name
>> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name
>>>> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving
>>>>>> groups, it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves
>>>>>> salts...
>>>>>
>>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms
>>>>> are almost certainly completely different.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are
>>>> different on other planets, a notion which you will need to
>>>> support with something beyond opinion, it will be true on any
>>>> planet.
>>>
>>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the
>>> internet fixate on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the
>>> actual point. Believe whatever crap you want. :-\
>>
>> So to you physics is "crap".
>>
>> <plonk>
>
> If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is
> exactly the same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same
> needs and requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete
> moron.
>
I don't think he's a *complete* moron. There are a few parts
missing.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Paul Colquhoun
2018-04-29 01:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:37:50 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
| On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
|> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
|> wrote:
|>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
|>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
|>>> wrote:
|>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
|>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
|>>>>>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
|>>>>> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
|>>>>> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
|>>>>> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
|>>>>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
|>>>>
|>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
|>>>> certainly completely different.
|>>>
|>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are different on
|>>> other planets, a notion which you will need to support with something
|>>> beyond opinion, it will be true on any planet.
|>>
|>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet fixate
|>> on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual point. Believe
|>> whatever crap you want. :-\
|>
|> So to you physics is "crap".
|>
|> <plonk>
|
| If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly the
| same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
| requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.


If you think the 2 options are "exactly the same as life on earth" or
"not based on carbon compounds" you are missing a huge middle ground.

Starting right from the basics, amino acids come in right and left
handed versions. Life on earth uses one, but nobody thinks the other
would not work just as well.

We only use 4 bases in our DNA, but there have been recent experiments
that inserted another 2 in a test organism, so that is another option
for life elsewhere.

Here we use base triplets to encode for each amino acid in a protein,
with quite a bit of redundancy in the coding. There is probably some
chemistry backing the basics of the coding, but using 4-base sequences
is probably possible, just less efficient.

So, the basic chemical makeup will be similar, but the details will
probably vary quite a lot.

As to "needs and requirements", on a simple level, yes they will
be the same (or very similar). Organisms will require food, energy
(maybe from food, maybe from light), shelter. Or did you have something
else in mind?


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
Your Name
2018-04-29 05:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-29 01:18:42 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:37:50 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> | On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
> |> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
> |> wrote:
> |>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
> |>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
> |>>> wrote:
> |>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
> |>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
> |>>>>>>
> |>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
> |>>>>>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
> |>>>>>
> |>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
> |>>>>> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
> |>>>>> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
> |>>>>> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
> |>>>>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
> |>>>>
> |>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
> |>>>> certainly completely different.
> |>>>
> |>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are different on
> |>>> other planets, a notion which you will need to support with something
> |>>> beyond opinion, it will be true on any planet.
> |>>
> |>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet fixate
> |>> on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual point. Believe
> |>> whatever crap you want. :-\
> |>
> |> So to you physics is "crap".
> |>
> |> <plonk>
> |
> | If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly the
> | same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
> | requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.
>
>
> If you think the 2 options are "exactly the same as life on earth" or
> "not based on carbon compounds" you are missing a huge middle ground.
>
> Starting right from the basics, amino acids come in right and left
> handed versions. Life on earth uses one, but nobody thinks the other
> would not work just as well.
>
> We only use 4 bases in our DNA, but there have been recent experiments
> that inserted another 2 in a test organism, so that is another option
> for life elsewhere.
>
> Here we use base triplets to encode for each amino acid in a protein,
> with quite a bit of redundancy in the coding. There is probably some
> chemistry backing the basics of the coding, but using 4-base sequences
> is probably possible, just less efficient.
>
> So, the basic chemical makeup will be similar, but the details will
> probably vary quite a lot.
>
> As to "needs and requirements", on a simple level, yes they will
> be the same (or very similar). Organisms will require food, energy
> (maybe from food, maybe from light), shelter. Or did you have something
> else in mind?

It's amaziong how many people have a complete and utter lack of reading
comprehension ability. :-(

As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have to
need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is blinkered
stupidity.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-04-29 06:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/28/2018 10:04 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2018-04-29 01:18:42 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:37:50 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>> wrote:
>> | On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>> |> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>> |> wrote:
>> |>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>> |>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>> |>>> wrote:
>> |>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>> |>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>> |>>>>>>
>> |>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>> belief that
>> |>>>>>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>> |>>>>>
>> |>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>> |>>>>> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>> |>>>>> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>> |>>>>> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>> |>>>>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>> |>>>>
>> |>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
>> almost
>> |>>>> certainly completely different.
>> |>>>
>> |>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are different on
>> |>>> other planets, a notion which you will need to support with
>> something
>> |>>> beyond opinion, it will be true on any planet.
>> |>>
>> |>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet
>> fixate
>> |>> on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual point. Believe
>> |>> whatever crap you want.  :-\
>> |>
>> |> So to you physics is "crap".
>> |>
>> |> <plonk>
>> |
>> | If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly the
>> | same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
>> | requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.
>>
>>
>> If you think the 2 options are "exactly the same as life on earth" or
>> "not based on carbon compounds" you are missing a huge middle ground.
>>
>> Starting right from the basics, amino acids come in right and left
>> handed versions. Life on earth uses one, but nobody thinks the other
>> would not work just as well.
>>
>> We only use 4 bases in our DNA, but there have been recent experiments
>> that inserted another 2 in a test organism, so that is another option
>> for life elsewhere.
>>
>> Here we use base triplets to encode for each amino acid in a protein,
>> with quite a bit of redundancy in the coding. There is probably some
>> chemistry backing the basics of the coding, but using 4-base sequences
>> is probably possible, just less efficient.
>>
>> So, the basic chemical makeup will be similar, but the details will
>> probably vary quite a lot.
>>
>> As to "needs and requirements", on a simple level, yes they will
>> be the same (or very similar). Organisms will require food, energy
>> (maybe from food, maybe from light), shelter. Or did you have something
>> else in mind?
>
> It's amazing how many people have a complete and utter lack of reading
> comprehension ability.  :-(
>
> As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have to
> need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is blinkered
> stupidity.
>
So how do we look for life that doesn't need water? Until you can
answer that we're not the ones having a comprehension problem.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Your Name
2018-04-29 07:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-29 06:24:28 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
>>
>> As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have to
>> need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is blinkered
>> stupidity.
>
> So how do we look for life that doesn't need water? Until you can
> answer that we're not the ones having a comprehension problem.

I never said it wasn't the easiest option ... just that it wasn't the
ONLY option. Water-required life forms could well be in the minority of
the universe's life forms, which means they're also looking for the
smallest needle in the haystack.
David Johnston
2018-04-29 07:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-29 1:20 AM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2018-04-29 06:24:28 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
>>>
>>> As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have
>>> to need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is
>>> blinkered stupidity.
>>
>> So how do we look for life that doesn't need water?  Until you can
>> answer that we're not the ones having a comprehension problem.
>
> I never said it wasn't the easiest option ... just that it wasn't the
> ONLY option.

Actually we don't know that's true.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-04-29 17:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/29/2018 12:20 AM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2018-04-29 06:24:28 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
>>>
>>> As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have
>>> to need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is
>>> blinkered stupidity.
>>
>> So how do we look for life that doesn't need water?  Until you can
>> answer that we're not the ones having a comprehension problem.
>
> I never said it wasn't the easiest option ... just that it wasn't the
> ONLY option. Water-required life forms could well be in the minority of
> the universe's life forms, which means they're also looking for the
> smallest needle in the haystack.
>
And I'll repeat what I've said twice before now. HOW would we look for
non-aqueous life? What should we be looking for THAT IS PHYSICALLY
POSSIBLE FOR US TO WITH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY AND UNDERSTANDING OF
NON-AQUEOUS NON-CARBON BASED LIFE?

Until you can do that you are complaining that because people are not
doing something that we don't know how to do they aren't considering a
possibility they can't test for.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Thomas Koenig
2018-04-29 18:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
> On 2018-04-29 06:24:28 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
>>>
>>> As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have to
>>> need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is blinkered
>>> stupidity.
>>
>> So how do we look for life that doesn't need water? Until you can
>> answer that we're not the ones having a comprehension problem.
>
> I never said it wasn't the easiest option ... just that it wasn't the
> ONLY option. Water-required life forms could well be in the minority of
> the universe's life forms, which means they're also looking for the
> smallest needle in the haystack.

What chemistry would you propose as an alternative?
Cryptoengineer
2018-04-29 23:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
news:pc3jp6$2md$***@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 2018-04-29 01:18:42 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:37:50 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>> wrote:
>> | On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>> |> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name
>> |> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> |>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>> |>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name
>> |>>> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> |>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>> |>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>> |>>>>>>
>> |>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>> |>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>> |>>>>>> moronically silly.
>> |>>>>>
>> |>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>> |>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>> |>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>> |>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups,
>> |>>>>> it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>> |>>>>
>> |>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
>> |>>>> almost certainly completely different.
>> |>>>
>> |>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are
>> |>>> different on other planets, a notion which you will need to
>> |>>> support with something beyond opinion, it will be true on any
>> |>>> planet.
>> |>>
>> |>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet
>> |>> fixate on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual
>> |>> point. Believe whatever crap you want. :-\
>> |>
>> |> So to you physics is "crap".
>> |>
>> |> <plonk>
>> |
>> | If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly
>> | the same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
>> | requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.
>>
>>
>> If you think the 2 options are "exactly the same as life on earth" or
>> "not based on carbon compounds" you are missing a huge middle ground.
>>
>> Starting right from the basics, amino acids come in right and left
>> handed versions. Life on earth uses one, but nobody thinks the other
>> would not work just as well.
>>
>> We only use 4 bases in our DNA, but there have been recent
>> experiments that inserted another 2 in a test organism, so that is
>> another option for life elsewhere.
>>
>> Here we use base triplets to encode for each amino acid in a protein,
>> with quite a bit of redundancy in the coding. There is probably some
>> chemistry backing the basics of the coding, but using 4-base
>> sequences is probably possible, just less efficient.
>>
>> So, the basic chemical makeup will be similar, but the details will
>> probably vary quite a lot.
>>
>> As to "needs and requirements", on a simple level, yes they will
>> be the same (or very similar). Organisms will require food, energy
>> (maybe from food, maybe from light), shelter. Or did you have
>> something else in mind?
>
> It's amaziong how many people have a complete and utter lack of
> reading comprehension ability. :-(
>
> As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have
> to need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is blinkered
> stupidity.

You keep saying that, but present no arguments. Until you do, your 10th
repetition is no more convincing than the first.

We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
should look for?

pt
J. Clarke
2018-04-30 00:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>news:pc3jp6$2md$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>
>> On 2018-04-29 01:18:42 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
>>
>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:37:50 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> | On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>>> |> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name
>>> |> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>> |>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>>> |>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name
>>> |>>> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>> |>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>> |>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>> |>>>>>>
>>> |>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>> |>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>> |>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>> |>>>>>
>>> |>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>> |>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>>> |>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>>> |>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups,
>>> |>>>>> it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>> |>>>>
>>> |>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
>>> |>>>> almost certainly completely different.
>>> |>>>
>>> |>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are
>>> |>>> different on other planets, a notion which you will need to
>>> |>>> support with something beyond opinion, it will be true on any
>>> |>>> planet.
>>> |>>
>>> |>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet
>>> |>> fixate on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual
>>> |>> point. Believe whatever crap you want. :-\
>>> |>
>>> |> So to you physics is "crap".
>>> |>
>>> |> <plonk>
>>> |
>>> | If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly
>>> | the same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
>>> | requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you think the 2 options are "exactly the same as life on earth" or
>>> "not based on carbon compounds" you are missing a huge middle ground.
>>>
>>> Starting right from the basics, amino acids come in right and left
>>> handed versions. Life on earth uses one, but nobody thinks the other
>>> would not work just as well.
>>>
>>> We only use 4 bases in our DNA, but there have been recent
>>> experiments that inserted another 2 in a test organism, so that is
>>> another option for life elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Here we use base triplets to encode for each amino acid in a protein,
>>> with quite a bit of redundancy in the coding. There is probably some
>>> chemistry backing the basics of the coding, but using 4-base
>>> sequences is probably possible, just less efficient.
>>>
>>> So, the basic chemical makeup will be similar, but the details will
>>> probably vary quite a lot.
>>>
>>> As to "needs and requirements", on a simple level, yes they will
>>> be the same (or very similar). Organisms will require food, energy
>>> (maybe from food, maybe from light), shelter. Or did you have
>>> something else in mind?
>>
>> It's amaziong how many people have a complete and utter lack of
>> reading comprehension ability. :-(
>>
>> As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have
>> to need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is blinkered
>> stupidity.
>
>You keep saying that, but present no arguments. Until you do, your 10th
>repetition is no more convincing than the first.
>
>We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
>environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
>present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
>should look for?

Why are you wasting your time on this person?
>
>pt
Titus G
2018-04-30 03:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 30/04/18 12:18, J. Clarke asked:
Cryptoengineer
who had replied to
>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com>


> Why are you wasting your time on this person?

Perhaps keeping it here till someone comes in with a brolly?
Or perhaps for my benefit as I enjoyed pt & Paul C's replies.
Nah. Brolly wins.
Your Name
2018-04-30 02:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-29 23:57:24 +0000, Cryptoengineer said:
> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
> news:pc3jp6$2md$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>> On 2018-04-29 01:18:42 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:37:50 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> | On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>>> |> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name
>>> |> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>> |>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>>> |>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name
>>> |>>> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>> |>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>> |>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>> |>>>>>>
>>> |>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>> |>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>> |>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>> |>>>>>
>>> |>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>> |>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>>> |>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>>> |>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups,
>>> |>>>>> it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>> |>>>>
>>> |>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
>>> |>>>> almost certainly completely different.
>>> |>>>
>>> |>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are
>>> |>>> different on other planets, a notion which you will need to
>>> |>>> support with something beyond opinion, it will be true on any
>>> |>>> planet.
>>> |>>
>>> |>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet
>>> |>> fixate on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual
>>> |>> point. Believe whatever crap you want. :-\
>>> |>
>>> |> So to you physics is "crap".
>>> |>
>>> |> <plonk>
>>> |
>>> | If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly
>>> | the same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
>>> | requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you think the 2 options are "exactly the same as life on earth" or
>>> "not based on carbon compounds" you are missing a huge middle ground.
>>>
>>> Starting right from the basics, amino acids come in right and left
>>> handed versions. Life on earth uses one, but nobody thinks the other
>>> would not work just as well.
>>>
>>> We only use 4 bases in our DNA, but there have been recent
>>> experiments that inserted another 2 in a test organism, so that is
>>> another option for life elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Here we use base triplets to encode for each amino acid in a protein,
>>> with quite a bit of redundancy in the coding. There is probably some
>>> chemistry backing the basics of the coding, but using 4-base
>>> sequences is probably possible, just less efficient.
>>>
>>> So, the basic chemical makeup will be similar, but the details will
>>> probably vary quite a lot.
>>>
>>> As to "needs and requirements", on a simple level, yes they will
>>> be the same (or very similar). Organisms will require food, energy
>>> (maybe from food, maybe from light), shelter. Or did you have
>>> something else in mind?
>>
>> It's amaziong how many people have a complete and utter lack of
>> reading comprehension ability. :-(
>>
>> As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have
>> to need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is blinkered
>> stupidity.
>
> You keep saying that, but present no arguments. Until you do, your 10th
> repetition is no more convincing than the first.
>
> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
> environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
> present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
> should look for?

Ah, so scientists are not only blinkered fools, they're also lazy scum
who can't do the job their paid to do ... it's the general public who
has to come up with all the ideas for them. :-\
Paul Colquhoun
2018-04-30 03:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:19:52 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:

|> environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
|> present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
|> should look for?
|
| Ah, so scientists are not only blinkered fools, they're also lazy scum
| who can't do the job their paid to do ... it's the general public who
| has to come up with all the ideas for them. :-\


They get enough criticism for "wasting money" by looking for the signs
we can recognise. Just think of the reception when they start looking
for life-signs they "just made up".

Lose-Lose situation.


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
Your Name
2018-04-30 06:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-30 03:21:29 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:19:52 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> |>
> |> environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
> |> present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
> |> should look for?
> |
> | Ah, so scientists are not only blinkered fools, they're also lazy scum
> | who can't do the job their paid to do ... it's the general public who
> | has to come up with all the ideas for them. :-\
>
> They get enough criticism for "wasting money" by looking for the signs
> we can recognise. Just think of the reception when they start looking
> for life-signs they "just made up".
>
> Lose-Lose situation.

They already waste piles of money on silly "studies" that simply
confirm the patently obvious. There was a report of an idiotic study in
the weekend newspaper that (surprise, surprise!) young kids have more
energy than adults. :-\
Dimensional Traveler
2018-04-30 06:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/29/2018 7:19 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2018-04-29 23:57:24 +0000, Cryptoengineer said:
>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>> news:pc3jp6$2md$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>> On 2018-04-29 01:18:42 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:37:50 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> | On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>>>> |> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name
>>>> |> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>> |>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>>>> |>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name
>>>> |>>> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>> |>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>> |>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>> |>>>>>>
>>>> |>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>> |>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>> |>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>> |>>>>>
>>>> |>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>> |>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>>>> |>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>>>> |>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups,
>>>> |>>>>> it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>> |>>>>
>>>> |>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
>>>> |>>>> almost certainly completely different.
>>>> |>>>
>>>> |>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are
>>>> |>>> different on other planets, a notion which you will need to
>>>> |>>> support with something beyond opinion, it will be true on any
>>>> |>>> planet.
>>>> |>>
>>>> |>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet
>>>> |>> fixate on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual
>>>> |>> point. Believe whatever crap you want.  :-\
>>>> |>
>>>> |> So to you physics is "crap".
>>>> |>
>>>> |> <plonk>
>>>> |
>>>> | If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly
>>>> | the same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
>>>> | requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you think the 2 options are "exactly the same as life on earth" or
>>>> "not based on carbon compounds" you are missing a huge middle ground.
>>>>
>>>> Starting right from the basics, amino acids come in right and left
>>>> handed versions. Life on earth uses one, but nobody thinks the other
>>>> would not work just as well.
>>>>
>>>> We only use 4 bases in our DNA, but there have been recent
>>>> experiments that inserted another 2 in a test organism, so that is
>>>> another option for life elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Here we use base triplets to encode for each amino acid in a protein,
>>>> with quite a bit of redundancy in the coding. There is probably some
>>>> chemistry backing the basics of the coding, but using 4-base
>>>> sequences is probably possible, just less efficient.
>>>>
>>>> So, the basic chemical makeup will be similar, but the details will
>>>> probably vary quite a lot.
>>>>
>>>> As to "needs and requirements", on a simple level, yes they will
>>>> be the same (or very similar). Organisms will require food, energy
>>>> (maybe from food, maybe from light), shelter. Or did you have
>>>> something else in mind?
>>>
>>> It's amaziong how many people have a complete and utter lack of
>>> reading comprehension ability.  :-(
>>>
>>> As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have
>>> to need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is blinkered
>>> stupidity.
>>
>> You keep saying that, but present no arguments. Until you do, your 10th
>> repetition is no more convincing than the first.
>>
>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
>> environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
>> present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
>> should look for?
>
> Ah, so scientists are not only blinkered fools, they're also lazy scum
> who can't do the job their paid to do ... it's the general public who
> has to come up with all the ideas for them.  :-\
>
You haven't come up with any ideas either. Why do you assume scientists
are not trying to find life in any form they can? All you are doing is
whining that we should all be riding on flying carpets instead of
driving cars.


--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Thomas Koenig
2018-05-01 00:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:

> Ah, so scientists are not only blinkered fools, they're also lazy scum
> who can't do the job their paid to do ... it's the general public who
> has to come up with all the ideas for them. :-\

So, please make a useful suggestion regarding non-water-based life.

What do you think it can look like? Please give an outline of the
basic chemistry involved.

Do you think there can be life without solvents?

If yes, how would that work?

If no, what sort of solvents do you propose? Please state under
which conditions they would be found in large quantities (preferably
with an example in our Solar sytstem).

What functional groups should play the dominant role in this chemistry?
How would the reactions work? What should be the main energy source for
life?
Christian Weisgerber
2018-05-01 15:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-05-01, Thomas Koenig <***@netcologne.de> wrote:

> So, please make a useful suggestion regarding non-water-based life.
[...]
> If no, what sort of solvents do you propose? Please state under
> which conditions they would be found in large quantities (preferably
> with an example in our Solar sytstem).

Hal Clement was fond of ammonia-based body fluid. I don't know how
plausible that is.

> What functional groups should play the dominant role in this chemistry?
> How would the reactions work? What should be the main energy source for
> life?

Assuming for a moment, for argument's sake, that there was intelligent
non-water based life with our level of general chemical understanding,
could they predict these things from first principles for (from their
point of view) hypothetical water-based life?

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Mike Van Pelt
2018-05-01 19:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,
Christian Weisgerber <***@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>Hal Clement was fond of ammonia-based body fluid. I don't know how
>plausible that is.

He also delighted in playing games with the ammonia-water
eutectic. Fun stuff.

Ammonia is a polar molecule, so it possibly would work for
life as we don't know it.

(Memories of a cartoon I saw decades ago in some magazine or
book -- a Gahan Wilson one, probably -- of an alien crawling
across a lifeless desert, moaning "Ammonia... Ammonia...")

>Assuming for a moment, for argument's sake, that there was intelligent
>non-water based life with our level of general chemical understanding,
>could they predict these things from first principles for (from their
>point of view) hypothetical water-based life?

"It's life, Blorgt, but not as we know it."

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
Christian Weisgerber
2018-05-01 20:09:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-05-01, Mike Van Pelt <***@web1.calweb.com> wrote:

>>Hal Clement was fond of ammonia-based body fluid. I don't know how
>>plausible that is.
>
> He also delighted in playing games with the ammonia-water
> eutectic. Fun stuff.

Indeed. He wrote a whole novel (_Star Light_, 1971) around it.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Robert Carnegie
2018-04-30 07:28:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 30 April 2018 00:57:30 UTC+1, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
> news:pc3jp6$2md$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>
> > On 2018-04-29 01:18:42 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
> >
> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:37:50 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> | On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
> >> |> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name
> >> |> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >> |>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
> >> |>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name
> >> |>>> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >> |>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
> >> |>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
> >> |>>>>>>
> >> |>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
> >> |>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
> >> |>>>>>> moronically silly.
> >> |>>>>>
> >> |>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
> >> |>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
> >> |>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
> >> |>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups,
> >> |>>>>> it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
> >> |>>>>
> >> |>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
> >> |>>>> almost certainly completely different.
> >> |>>>
> >> |>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are
> >> |>>> different on other planets, a notion which you will need to
> >> |>>> support with something beyond opinion, it will be true on any
> >> |>>> planet.
> >> |>>
> >> |>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet
> >> |>> fixate on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual
> >> |>> point. Believe whatever crap you want. :-\
> >> |>
> >> |> So to you physics is "crap".
> >> |>
> >> |> <plonk>
> >> |
> >> | If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly
> >> | the same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
> >> | requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you think the 2 options are "exactly the same as life on earth" or
> >> "not based on carbon compounds" you are missing a huge middle ground.
> >>
> >> Starting right from the basics, amino acids come in right and left
> >> handed versions. Life on earth uses one, but nobody thinks the other
> >> would not work just as well.
> >>
> >> We only use 4 bases in our DNA, but there have been recent
> >> experiments that inserted another 2 in a test organism, so that is
> >> another option for life elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Here we use base triplets to encode for each amino acid in a protein,
> >> with quite a bit of redundancy in the coding. There is probably some
> >> chemistry backing the basics of the coding, but using 4-base
> >> sequences is probably possible, just less efficient.
> >>
> >> So, the basic chemical makeup will be similar, but the details will
> >> probably vary quite a lot.
> >>
> >> As to "needs and requirements", on a simple level, yes they will
> >> be the same (or very similar). Organisms will require food, energy
> >> (maybe from food, maybe from light), shelter. Or did you have
> >> something else in mind?
> >
> > It's amaziong how many people have a complete and utter lack of
> > reading comprehension ability. :-(
> >
> > As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have
> > to need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is blinkered
> > stupidity.
>
> You keep saying that, but present no arguments. Until you do, your 10th
> repetition is no more convincing than the first.
>
> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
> environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
> present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
> should look for?

This probably applies mainly to people who actually are
looking for extraterrestrial life, using their limited
resources.

Life on a significant scale probably will alter -
pollute? - its environment. On Earth I'm looking
at oxygen, which shouldn't be lying around everywhere
like it is - life did that.

So, look everywhere for the presence of chemicals
without a no-life explanation - investigate that,
and maybe you just find a new unsuspected chemical
reaction, but you discovered /something/.
David DeLaney
2018-04-30 08:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-30, Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> wrote:
> Life on a significant scale probably will alter -
> pollute? - its environment. On Earth I'm looking
> at oxygen, which shouldn't be lying around everywhere
> like it is - life did that.

Right; without life tossing it out, it combines with the rocks pretty damn
fast on a geologic timescale. This is one reason Mars is rust-red, for example.

> So, look everywhere for the presence of chemicals
> without a no-life explanation - investigate that,
> and maybe you just find a new unsuspected chemical
> reaction, but you discovered /something/.

I'm thinking probably the Big 3 that would SCREAM "life" would be O_2 in the
atmosphere in non-miniscule amounts, and (less likely) F_2 or Cl_2. Methane
and ammonia are stable in a hydrogen atmosphere, as should H_2O be, so they're
not actually signs of life there... CO_2 ... maybe.

An overabundance of noble gases, even if it's "way too much helium", would
signal SOMETHING weird is going on, but I can't think of a good way for it to
be a direct byproduct of alien biology.

There you go, at least three other things we could keep an eye out for in
exoatmosphere analysis. (On an only slightly-warmer world, excess mercury or
gallium in the amosphere would be another "WTF?" indicator...)

Dave, and the universe in general is not quite cool enough yet for supercon-
ducting-helium life to naturally arise, though pockets might be on a short
scale
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David Johnston
2018-04-30 16:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-30 1:28 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Monday, 30 April 2018 00:57:30 UTC+1, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
>> news:pc3jp6$2md$***@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 2018-04-29 01:18:42 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:37:50 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> | On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>>>> |> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name
>>>> |> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>> |>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>>>> |>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name
>>>> |>>> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>> |>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>>>> |>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>> |>>>>>>
>>>> |>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
>>>> |>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
>>>> |>>>>>> moronically silly.
>>>> |>>>>>
>>>> |>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
>>>> |>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
>>>> |>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
>>>> |>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups,
>>>> |>>>>> it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>>>> |>>>>
>>>> |>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
>>>> |>>>> almost certainly completely different.
>>>> |>>>
>>>> |>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are
>>>> |>>> different on other planets, a notion which you will need to
>>>> |>>> support with something beyond opinion, it will be true on any
>>>> |>>> planet.
>>>> |>>
>>>> |>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet
>>>> |>> fixate on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual
>>>> |>> point. Believe whatever crap you want. :-\
>>>> |>
>>>> |> So to you physics is "crap".
>>>> |>
>>>> |> <plonk>
>>>> |
>>>> | If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly
>>>> | the same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
>>>> | requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you think the 2 options are "exactly the same as life on earth" or
>>>> "not based on carbon compounds" you are missing a huge middle ground.
>>>>
>>>> Starting right from the basics, amino acids come in right and left
>>>> handed versions. Life on earth uses one, but nobody thinks the other
>>>> would not work just as well.
>>>>
>>>> We only use 4 bases in our DNA, but there have been recent
>>>> experiments that inserted another 2 in a test organism, so that is
>>>> another option for life elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Here we use base triplets to encode for each amino acid in a protein,
>>>> with quite a bit of redundancy in the coding. There is probably some
>>>> chemistry backing the basics of the coding, but using 4-base
>>>> sequences is probably possible, just less efficient.
>>>>
>>>> So, the basic chemical makeup will be similar, but the details will
>>>> probably vary quite a lot.
>>>>
>>>> As to "needs and requirements", on a simple level, yes they will
>>>> be the same (or very similar). Organisms will require food, energy
>>>> (maybe from food, maybe from light), shelter. Or did you have
>>>> something else in mind?
>>>
>>> It's amaziong how many people have a complete and utter lack of
>>> reading comprehension ability. :-(
>>>
>>> As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have
>>> to need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is blinkered
>>> stupidity.
>>
>> You keep saying that, but present no arguments. Until you do, your 10th
>> repetition is no more convincing than the first.
>>
>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
>> environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
>> present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
>> should look for?
>
> This probably applies mainly to people who actually are
> looking for extraterrestrial life, using their limited
> resources.
>
> Life on a significant scale probably will alter -
> pollute? - its environment. On Earth I'm looking
> at oxygen, which shouldn't be lying around everywhere
> like it is - life did that.
>
> So, look everywhere for the presence of chemicals
> without a no-life explanation - investigate that,
> and maybe you just find a new unsuspected chemical
> reaction, but you discovered /something/.
>

Of course we've done that where we could already.
Robert Carnegie
2018-04-30 21:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 30 April 2018 17:07:13 UTC+1, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2018-04-30 1:28 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Monday, 30 April 2018 00:57:30 UTC+1, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> >> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
> >> news:pc3jp6$2md$***@gioia.aioe.org:
> >>
> >>> On 2018-04-29 01:18:42 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:37:50 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> | On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
> >>>> |> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name
> >>>> |> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >>>> |>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
> >>>> |>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name
> >>>> |>>> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >>>> |>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
> >>>> |>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
> >>>> |>>>>>>
> >>>> |>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
> >>>> |>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
> >>>> |>>>>>> moronically silly.
> >>>> |>>>>>
> >>>> |>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
> >>>> |>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
> >>>> |>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
> >>>> |>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups,
> >>>> |>>>>> it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
> >>>> |>>>>
> >>>> |>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
> >>>> |>>>> almost certainly completely different.
> >>>> |>>>
> >>>> |>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are
> >>>> |>>> different on other planets, a notion which you will need to
> >>>> |>>> support with something beyond opinion, it will be true on any
> >>>> |>>> planet.
> >>>> |>>
> >>>> |>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet
> >>>> |>> fixate on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual
> >>>> |>> point. Believe whatever crap you want. :-\
> >>>> |>
> >>>> |> So to you physics is "crap".
> >>>> |>
> >>>> |> <plonk>
> >>>> |
> >>>> | If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly
> >>>> | the same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
> >>>> | requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If you think the 2 options are "exactly the same as life on earth" or
> >>>> "not based on carbon compounds" you are missing a huge middle ground.
> >>>>
> >>>> Starting right from the basics, amino acids come in right and left
> >>>> handed versions. Life on earth uses one, but nobody thinks the other
> >>>> would not work just as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> We only use 4 bases in our DNA, but there have been recent
> >>>> experiments that inserted another 2 in a test organism, so that is
> >>>> another option for life elsewhere.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here we use base triplets to encode for each amino acid in a protein,
> >>>> with quite a bit of redundancy in the coding. There is probably some
> >>>> chemistry backing the basics of the coding, but using 4-base
> >>>> sequences is probably possible, just less efficient.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, the basic chemical makeup will be similar, but the details will
> >>>> probably vary quite a lot.
> >>>>
> >>>> As to "needs and requirements", on a simple level, yes they will
> >>>> be the same (or very similar). Organisms will require food, energy
> >>>> (maybe from food, maybe from light), shelter. Or did you have
> >>>> something else in mind?
> >>>
> >>> It's amaziong how many people have a complete and utter lack of
> >>> reading comprehension ability. :-(
> >>>
> >>> As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have
> >>> to need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is blinkered
> >>> stupidity.
> >>
> >> You keep saying that, but present no arguments. Until you do, your 10th
> >> repetition is no more convincing than the first.
> >>
> >> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
> >> environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
> >> present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
> >> should look for?
> >
> > This probably applies mainly to people who actually are
> > looking for extraterrestrial life, using their limited
> > resources.
> >
> > Life on a significant scale probably will alter -
> > pollute? - its environment. On Earth I'm looking
> > at oxygen, which shouldn't be lying around everywhere
> > like it is - life did that.
> >
> > So, look everywhere for the presence of chemicals
> > without a no-life explanation - investigate that,
> > and maybe you just find a new unsuspected chemical
> > reaction, but you discovered /something/.
> >
>
> Of course we've done that where we could already.

Then I suppose the matter is settled.
Peter Trei
2018-04-30 18:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:28:59 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Monday, 30 April 2018 00:57:30 UTC+1, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> > Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote in
> > news:pc3jp6$2md$***@gioia.aioe.org:
> >
> > > On 2018-04-29 01:18:42 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:
> > >
> > >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:37:50 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> | On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:
> > >> |> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name
> > >> |> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > >> |>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:
> > >> |>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name
> > >> |>>> <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > >> |>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
> > >> |>>>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
> > >> |>>>>>>
> > >> |>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the
> > >> |>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is
> > >> |>>>>>> moronically silly.
> > >> |>>>>>
> > >> |>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for
> > >> |>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such
> > >> |>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it
> > >> |>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups,
> > >> |>>>>> it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
> > >> |>>>>
> > >> |>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are
> > >> |>>>> almost certainly completely different.
> > >> |>>>
> > >> |>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are
> > >> |>>> different on other planets, a notion which you will need to
> > >> |>>> support with something beyond opinion, it will be true on any
> > >> |>>> planet.
> > >> |>>
> > >> |>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet
> > >> |>> fixate on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual
> > >> |>> point. Believe whatever crap you want. :-\
> > >> |>
> > >> |> So to you physics is "crap".
> > >> |>
> > >> |> <plonk>
> > >> |
> > >> | If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly
> > >> | the same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and
> > >> | requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> If you think the 2 options are "exactly the same as life on earth" or
> > >> "not based on carbon compounds" you are missing a huge middle ground.
> > >>
> > >> Starting right from the basics, amino acids come in right and left
> > >> handed versions. Life on earth uses one, but nobody thinks the other
> > >> would not work just as well.
> > >>
> > >> We only use 4 bases in our DNA, but there have been recent
> > >> experiments that inserted another 2 in a test organism, so that is
> > >> another option for life elsewhere.
> > >>
> > >> Here we use base triplets to encode for each amino acid in a protein,
> > >> with quite a bit of redundancy in the coding. There is probably some
> > >> chemistry backing the basics of the coding, but using 4-base
> > >> sequences is probably possible, just less efficient.
> > >>
> > >> So, the basic chemical makeup will be similar, but the details will
> > >> probably vary quite a lot.
> > >>
> > >> As to "needs and requirements", on a simple level, yes they will
> > >> be the same (or very similar). Organisms will require food, energy
> > >> (maybe from food, maybe from light), shelter. Or did you have
> > >> something else in mind?
> > >
> > > It's amaziong how many people have a complete and utter lack of
> > > reading comprehension ability. :-(
> > >
> > > As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have
> > > to need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is blinkered
> > > stupidity.
> >
> > You keep saying that, but present no arguments. Until you do, your 10th
> > repetition is no more convincing than the first.
> >
> > We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
> > environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
> > present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
> > should look for?
>
> This probably applies mainly to people who actually are
> looking for extraterrestrial life, using their limited
> resources.
>
> Life on a significant scale probably will alter -
> pollute? - its environment. On Earth I'm looking
> at oxygen, which shouldn't be lying around everywhere
> like it is - life did that.
>
> So, look everywhere for the presence of chemicals
> without a no-life explanation - investigate that,
> and maybe you just find a new unsuspected chemical
> reaction, but you discovered /something/.

Agreed - an atmosphere which is chemically unstable - such as
a surfeit of highly reactive elements and compounds - begs an
explanation.

Look at the excitement when wisps of methane were found in some
places on Mars.

pt
Gene Wirchenko
2018-04-30 18:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
>environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
>present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
>should look for?

We already know about that one.

Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us understand
our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
understand one's own language better.)

One idea of mine is to look for systems that have chemicals
converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon dioxide cycle
in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no guarantee of life, but
it is a start.

Another is to look at the differences between how life works with
various organisms on Earth and see what else seems reasonable. IIRC,
Earth life has some interesting kludges. Why are they there? If the
kludges were not there, what differences would result?

I am no expert in the area, and for all I know, these are already
being done, and those who know more may well be able to suggest other
ideas.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
J. Clarke
2018-05-01 00:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
><***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
>>environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
>>present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
>>should look for?
>
> We already know about that one.
>
> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us understand
>our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>understand one's own language better.)
>
> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have chemicals
>converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon dioxide cycle
>in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no guarantee of life, but
>it is a start.

Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals are
converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?

> Another is to look at the differences between how life works with
>various organisms on Earth and see what else seems reasonable. IIRC,
>Earth life has some interesting kludges. Why are they there? If the
>kludges were not there, what differences would result?
>
> I am no expert in the area, and for all I know, these are already
>being done, and those who know more may well be able to suggest other
>ideas.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
2018-05-01 18:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:48:49 -0400, J. Clarke
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>><***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
>>>environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
>>>present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
>>>should look for?
>>
>> We already know about that one.
>>
>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us understand
>>our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>>understand one's own language better.)
>>
>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have chemicals
>>converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon dioxide cycle
>>in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no guarantee of life, but
>>it is a start.
>
>Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals are
>converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?

Of course not. I am no expert in the area. That I do not know
the details does not mean that the approach could not work, but the
devil is in the details. If a scientist makes it work, kudos to the
scientist.

>> Another is to look at the differences between how life works with
>>various organisms on Earth and see what else seems reasonable. IIRC,
>>Earth life has some interesting kludges. Why are they there? If the
>>kludges were not there, what differences would result?
>>
>> I am no expert in the area, and for all I know, these are already
>>being done, and those who know more may well be able to suggest other
>>ideas.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-05-01 18:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:48:49 -0400, J. Clarke
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
>><***@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>>><***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type
>>>>of environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one.
>>>>Can you present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest
>>>>what we should look for?
>>>
>>> We already know about that one.
>>>
>>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us
>>> understand
>>>our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>>>understand one's own language better.)
>>>
>>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have
>>> chemicals
>>>converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon
>>>dioxide cycle in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no
>>>guarantee of life, but it is a start.
>>
>>Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals
>>are converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
>
> Of course not. I am no expert in the area.

And yet, you criticize those who are for doing it wrong.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-05-01 22:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/1/2018 11:18 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net> wrote in
> news:***@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:48:49 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
>>> <***@telus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type
>>>>> of environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one.
>>>>> Can you present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest
>>>>> what we should look for?
>>>>
>>>> We already know about that one.
>>>>
>>>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us
>>>> understand
>>>> our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>>>> understand one's own language better.)
>>>>
>>>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have
>>>> chemicals
>>>> converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon
>>>> dioxide cycle in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no
>>>> guarantee of life, but it is a start.
>>>
>>> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals
>>> are converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
>>
>> Of course not. I am no expert in the area.
>
> And yet, you criticize those who are for doing it wrong.
>
I think you are conflating Gene with 'Your Name' who has been bitching
about scientists spending money on stupid things and why are they only
looking for life like us.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Your Name
2018-05-02 06:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-05-01 22:30:24 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:

> On 5/1/2018 11:18 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net> wrote in
>> news:***@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:48:49 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
>>>> <***@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type
>>>>>> of environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one.
>>>>>> Can you present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest
>>>>>> what we should look for?
>>>>>
>>>>> We already know about that one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us
>>>>> understand
>>>>> our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>>>>> understand one's own language better.)
>>>>>
>>>>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have
>>>>> chemicals
>>>>> converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon
>>>>> dioxide cycle in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no
>>>>> guarantee of life, but it is a start.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals
>>>> are converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
>>>
>>> Of course not. I am no expert in the area.
>>
>> And yet, you criticize those who are for doing it wrong.
>>
> I think you are conflating Gene with 'Your Name' who has been bitching
> about scientists spending money on stupid things and why are they only
> looking for life like us.

It's what some scientists are paid to do ... I'm not. The fact that
they lazily take the easiest route isn't my fault.
Chris Buckley
2018-05-02 12:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-05-02, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> On 2018-05-01 22:30:24 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
>
>> On 5/1/2018 11:18 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net> wrote in
>>> news:***@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:48:49 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
>>>>> <***@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type
>>>>>>> of environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one.
>>>>>>> Can you present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest
>>>>>>> what we should look for?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We already know about that one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>> our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>>>>>> understand one's own language better.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have
>>>>>> chemicals
>>>>>> converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon
>>>>>> dioxide cycle in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no
>>>>>> guarantee of life, but it is a start.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals
>>>>> are converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
>>>>
>>>> Of course not. I am no expert in the area.
>>>
>>> And yet, you criticize those who are for doing it wrong.
>>>
>> I think you are conflating Gene with 'Your Name' who has been bitching
>> about scientists spending money on stupid things and why are they only
>> looking for life like us.
>
> It's what some scientists are paid to do ... I'm not. The fact that
> they lazily take the easiest route isn't my fault.

But the fact that you ignorantly accuse them of being lazy is your fault.

Chris
Dimensional Traveler
2018-05-02 14:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/1/2018 11:21 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2018-05-01 22:30:24 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
>
>> On 5/1/2018 11:18 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net> wrote in
>>> news:***@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:48:49 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
>>>>> <***@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type
>>>>>>> of environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one.
>>>>>>> Can you present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest
>>>>>>> what we should look for?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We already know about that one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>> our case.  (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>>>>>> understand one's own language better.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have
>>>>>> chemicals
>>>>>> converting back and forth.  (As with the oxygen - carbon
>>>>>> dioxide cycle in Earth's biosphere.)  This is, of course, no
>>>>>> guarantee of life, but it is a start.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals
>>>>> are converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
>>>>
>>>> Of course not.  I am no expert in the area.
>>>
>>> And yet, you criticize those who are for doing it wrong.
>>>
>> I think you are conflating Gene with 'Your Name' who has been bitching
>> about scientists spending money on stupid things and why are they only
>> looking for life like us.
>
> It's what some scientists are paid to do ... I'm not. The fact that they
> lazily take the easiest route isn't my fault.
>
And you still haven't made ANY kind of suggestion for how to look for
other life with the technology and knowledge we have.


--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
J. Clarke
2018-05-02 23:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 May 2018 07:45:32 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<***@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/1/2018 11:21 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2018-05-01 22:30:24 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
>>
>>> On 5/1/2018 11:18 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net> wrote in
>>>> news:***@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:48:49 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
>>>>>> <***@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>>>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type
>>>>>>>> of environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one.
>>>>>>>> Can you present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest
>>>>>>>> what we should look for?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We already know about that one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us
>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>> our case.  (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>>>>>>> understand one's own language better.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have
>>>>>>> chemicals
>>>>>>> converting back and forth.  (As with the oxygen - carbon
>>>>>>> dioxide cycle in Earth's biosphere.)  This is, of course, no
>>>>>>> guarantee of life, but it is a start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals
>>>>>> are converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course not.  I am no expert in the area.
>>>>
>>>> And yet, you criticize those who are for doing it wrong.
>>>>
>>> I think you are conflating Gene with 'Your Name' who has been bitching
>>> about scientists spending money on stupid things and why are they only
>>> looking for life like us.
>>
>> It's what some scientists are paid to do ... I'm not. The fact that they
>> lazily take the easiest route isn't my fault.
>>
>And you still haven't made ANY kind of suggestion for how to look for
>other life with the technology and knowledge we have.

He's one of those idiots to whom any job that they don't know how to
do is trivially easy.
Greg Goss
2018-05-03 01:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 2 May 2018 07:45:32 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
><***@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>On 5/1/2018 11:21 PM, Your Name wrote:

>>> It's what some scientists are paid to do ... I'm not. The fact that they
>>> lazily take the easiest route isn't my fault.
>>>
>>And you still haven't made ANY kind of suggestion for how to look for
>>other life with the technology and knowledge we have.
>
>He's one of those idiots to whom any job that they don't know how to
>do is trivially easy.

Doesn't that mean he's ready to be elected president?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-05-03 03:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote in
news:***@mid.individual.net:

> J. Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 2 May 2018 07:45:32 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>><***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 5/1/2018 11:21 PM, Your Name wrote:
>
>>>> It's what some scientists are paid to do ... I'm not. The
>>>> fact that they lazily take the easiest route isn't my fault.
>>>>
>>>And you still haven't made ANY kind of suggestion for how to
>>>look for other life with the technology and knowledge we have.
>>
>>He's one of those idiots to whom any job that they don't know
>>how to do is trivially easy.
>
> Doesn't that mean he's ready to be elected president?

It worked for Obama, but not Hillary. So historical data is mixed.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Your Name
2018-05-03 06:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-05-02 23:16:37 +0000, J. Clarke said:

> On Wed, 2 May 2018 07:45:32 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/1/2018 11:21 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 2018-05-01 22:30:24 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/1/2018 11:18 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>> Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:***@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:48:49 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
>>>>>>> <***@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>>>>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type
>>>>>>>>> of environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one.
>>>>>>>>> Can you present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest
>>>>>>>>> what we should look for?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We already know about that one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us
>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>> our case.  (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>>>>>>>> understand one's own language better.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have
>>>>>>>> chemicals
>>>>>>>> converting back and forth.  (As with the oxygen - carbon
>>>>>>>> dioxide cycle in Earth's biosphere.)  This is, of course, no
>>>>>>>> guarantee of life, but it is a start.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals
>>>>>>> are converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course not.  I am no expert in the area.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet, you criticize those who are for doing it wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I think you are conflating Gene with 'Your Name' who has been bitching
>>>> about scientists spending money on stupid things and why are they only
>>>> looking for life like us.
>>>
>>> It's what some scientists are paid to do ... I'm not. The fact that they
>>> lazily take the easiest route isn't my fault.
>>
>> And you still haven't made ANY kind of suggestion for how to look for
>> other life with the technology and knowledge we have.
>
> He's one of those idiots to whom any job that they don't know how to
> do is trivially easy.

It's amazing how many morons on the internet have reading comprehension
issues. :-\

I never ever said that it was "easy".

I never ever said I know how to do it ... I'm not being paid to come up
with such ideas, the scientists in that specific area are.

Simply a plain and simple *fact* that looking for life ONLY where water
is, or thinking life can ONLY exist where water is, or believing all
life in the universe is the same chemistry / structure / requirements /
etc. as life on Earth is stupidly blinkered.
Peter Trei
2018-05-03 13:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:22:22 AM UTC-4, Your Name wrote:
> On 2018-05-02 23:16:37 +0000, J. Clarke said:
>
> > On Wed, 2 May 2018 07:45:32 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> > <***@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/1/2018 11:21 PM, Your Name wrote:
> >>> On 2018-05-01 22:30:24 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/1/2018 11:18 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>>> Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net> wrote in
> >>>>> news:***@4ax.com:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:48:49 -0400, J. Clarke
> >>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
> >>>>>>> <***@telus.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
> >>>>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [snip]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type
> >>>>>>>>> of environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one.
> >>>>>>>>> Can you present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest
> >>>>>>>>> what we should look for?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We already know about that one.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us
> >>>>>>>> understand
> >>>>>>>> our case.  (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
> >>>>>>>> understand one's own language better.)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have
> >>>>>>>> chemicals
> >>>>>>>> converting back and forth.  (As with the oxygen - carbon
> >>>>>>>> dioxide cycle in Earth's biosphere.)  This is, of course, no
> >>>>>>>> guarantee of life, but it is a start.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals
> >>>>>>> are converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course not.  I am no expert in the area.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And yet, you criticize those who are for doing it wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you are conflating Gene with 'Your Name' who has been bitching
> >>>> about scientists spending money on stupid things and why are they only
> >>>> looking for life like us.
> >>>
> >>> It's what some scientists are paid to do ... I'm not. The fact that they
> >>> lazily take the easiest route isn't my fault.
> >>
> >> And you still haven't made ANY kind of suggestion for how to look for
> >> other life with the technology and knowledge we have.
> >
> > He's one of those idiots to whom any job that they don't know how to
> > do is trivially easy.
>
> It's amazing how many morons on the internet have reading comprehension
> issues. :-\
>
> I never ever said that it was "easy".
>
> I never ever said I know how to do it ... I'm not being paid to come up
> with such ideas, the scientists in that specific area are.
>
> Simply a plain and simple *fact* that looking for life ONLY where water
> is, or thinking life can ONLY exist where water is, or believing all
> life in the universe is the same chemistry / structure / requirements /
> etc. as life on Earth is stupidly blinkered.

Again, its a practical matter. We *know* that life can exist in an environment
with liquid water. We have some idea of what might be the signature of life
in such an environment and such environments aren't that rare.

We don't even know what to look for in other, non-aqueous environments; the best
we can come up with is 'that atmosphere is chemically unbalanced, and should not
persist over long periods'.

Given limited resources for searching, its rational to concentrate on places
we *know* could support life, rather than look at places where we might not even
recognize something as alive. The goal at the moment is to find any life at all.

If you feel otherwise, give arguments, taking into account that our resources
to search *are* limited. What proportion of funding should be moved from
studying places we *know* could support life to (for example) looking
for sentient quartz crystals?

pt
Gene Wirchenko
2018-05-02 05:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 01 May 2018 11:18:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net> wrote in
>news:***@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:48:49 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
>>><***@telus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>>>><***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>>We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type
>>>>>of environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one.
>>>>>Can you present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest
>>>>>what we should look for?
>>>>
>>>> We already know about that one.
>>>>
>>>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us
>>>> understand
>>>>our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>>>>understand one's own language better.)
>>>>
>>>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have
>>>> chemicals
>>>>converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon
>>>>dioxide cycle in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no
>>>>guarantee of life, but it is a start.
>>>
>>>Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals
>>>are converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
>>
>> Of course not. I am no expert in the area.
>
>And yet, you criticize those who are for doing it wrong.

What criticism did I make?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Robert Carnegie
2018-05-01 20:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 01:48:54 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
> ><***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
> >>environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
> >>present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
> >>should look for?
> >
> > We already know about that one.
> >
> > Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us understand
> >our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
> >understand one's own language better.)
> >
> > One idea of mine is to look for systems that have chemicals
> >converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon dioxide cycle
> >in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no guarantee of life, but
> >it is a start.
>
> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals are
> converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?

A REALLY good telescope may be able to see a
planetary atmosphere... and whether it changes colour,
say seasonally.

If the alien life lives in a /star/, so much the better.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-05-01 22:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/1/2018 1:29 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 01:48:54 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
>>>> environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
>>>> present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
>>>> should look for?
>>>
>>> We already know about that one.
>>>
>>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us understand
>>> our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>>> understand one's own language better.)
>>>
>>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have chemicals
>>> converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon dioxide cycle
>>> in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no guarantee of life, but
>>> it is a start.
>>
>> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals are
>> converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
>
> A REALLY good telescope may be able to see a
> planetary atmosphere... and whether it changes colour,
> say seasonally.
>
> If the alien life lives in a /star/, so much the better.
>
There's the rub. We don't HAVE telescopes that good and don't know how
to make ones that powerful.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Robert Carnegie
2018-05-02 20:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 23:32:03 UTC+1, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 5/1/2018 1:29 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 01:48:54 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
> >>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
> >>>> environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
> >>>> present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
> >>>> should look for?
> >>>
> >>> We already know about that one.
> >>>
> >>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us understand
> >>> our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
> >>> understand one's own language better.)
> >>>
> >>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have chemicals
> >>> converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon dioxide cycle
> >>> in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no guarantee of life, but
> >>> it is a start.
> >>
> >> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals are
> >> converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
> >
> > A REALLY good telescope may be able to see a
> > planetary atmosphere... and whether it changes colour,
> > say seasonally.
> >
> > If the alien life lives in a /star/, so much the better.
> >
> There's the rub. We don't HAVE telescopes that good and don't know how
> to make ones that powerful.

Definitely time for a "Doc" Smith re-read, then!

Actually, am I right in thinking that an extra-solar planet
will transit its star, as seen from here, at the same point
in its seasonal year each time? Although...... seasons can
come early or late, celestial mechanics notwithstanding.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-05-02 21:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/2/2018 1:49 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 23:32:03 UTC+1, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 5/1/2018 1:29 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 01:48:54 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
>>>>>> environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
>>>>>> present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
>>>>>> should look for?
>>>>>
>>>>> We already know about that one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us understand
>>>>> our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>>>>> understand one's own language better.)
>>>>>
>>>>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have chemicals
>>>>> converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon dioxide cycle
>>>>> in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no guarantee of life, but
>>>>> it is a start.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals are
>>>> converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
>>>
>>> A REALLY good telescope may be able to see a
>>> planetary atmosphere... and whether it changes colour,
>>> say seasonally.
>>>
>>> If the alien life lives in a /star/, so much the better.
>>>
>> There's the rub. We don't HAVE telescopes that good and don't know how
>> to make ones that powerful.
>
> Definitely time for a "Doc" Smith re-read, then!
>
> Actually, am I right in thinking that an extra-solar planet
> will transit its star, as seen from here, at the same point
> in its seasonal year each time? Although...... seasons can
> come early or late, celestial mechanics notwithstanding.
>
Change "seasonal year" to "orbital period" and you'd be right. Seasons
are a different matter depending on axial tilt relative to orbital plane
and how stable the planet's tilt _is_.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-05-02 22:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote in
news:pcdbg8$cbe$***@dont-email.me:

> On 5/2/2018 1:49 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 23:32:03 UTC+1, Dimensional Traveler
>> wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2018 1:29 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 01:48:54 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko
>>>>> <***@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one
>>>>>>> type of environment where life can arise, and its not a
>>>>>>> rare one. Can you present an argument for looking
>>>>>>> elsewhere, and suggest what we should look for?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We already know about that one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help
>>>>>> us understand
>>>>>> our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps
>>>>>> one understand one's own language better.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have
>>>>>> chemicals
>>>>>> converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon
>>>>>> dioxide cycle in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course,
>>>>>> no guarantee of life, but it is a start.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that
>>>>> "chemicals are converting back and forth" at interstellar
>>>>> distances?
>>>>
>>>> A REALLY good telescope may be able to see a
>>>> planetary atmosphere... and whether it changes colour,
>>>> say seasonally.
>>>>
>>>> If the alien life lives in a /star/, so much the better.
>>>>
>>> There's the rub. We don't HAVE telescopes that good and don't
>>> know how to make ones that powerful.
>>
>> Definitely time for a "Doc" Smith re-read, then!
>>
>> Actually, am I right in thinking that an extra-solar planet
>> will transit its star, as seen from here, at the same point
>> in its seasonal year each time? Although...... seasons can
>> come early or late, celestial mechanics notwithstanding.
>>
> Change "seasonal year" to "orbital period" and you'd be right.
> Seasons are a different matter depending on axial tilt relative
> to orbital plane and how stable the planet's tilt _is_.
>
I'm thinking the word "precession" might come into play here.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2018-05-02 23:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 May 2018 13:49:06 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<***@excite.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 23:32:03 UTC+1, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 5/1/2018 1:29 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 01:48:54 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>> >>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> [snip]
>> >>>
>> >>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
>> >>>> environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
>> >>>> present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
>> >>>> should look for?
>> >>>
>> >>> We already know about that one.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us understand
>> >>> our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>> >>> understand one's own language better.)
>> >>>
>> >>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have chemicals
>> >>> converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon dioxide cycle
>> >>> in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no guarantee of life, but
>> >>> it is a start.
>> >>
>> >> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals are
>> >> converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
>> >
>> > A REALLY good telescope may be able to see a
>> > planetary atmosphere... and whether it changes colour,
>> > say seasonally.
>> >
>> > If the alien life lives in a /star/, so much the better.
>> >
>> There's the rub. We don't HAVE telescopes that good and don't know how
>> to make ones that powerful.
>
>Definitely time for a "Doc" Smith re-read, then!
>
>Actually, am I right in thinking that an extra-solar planet
>will transit its star, as seen from here, at the same point
>in its seasonal year each time? Although...... seasons can
>come early or late, celestial mechanics notwithstanding.

You're assuming it transits at all. What little we do know of
extrasolar planetary atmospheres at this time comes mostly from such
transits. However I believe that the ones for which results have been
obtained were mostly gas giants, not small rocky planets.
Peter Trei
2018-05-03 13:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 7:05:43 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2018 13:49:06 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <***@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 23:32:03 UTC+1, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >> On 5/1/2018 1:29 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 01:48:54 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
> >> >>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [snip]
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
> >> >>>> environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
> >> >>>> present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
> >> >>>> should look for?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We already know about that one.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us understand
> >> >>> our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
> >> >>> understand one's own language better.)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> One idea of mine is to look for systems that have chemicals
> >> >>> converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon dioxide cycle
> >> >>> in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no guarantee of life, but
> >> >>> it is a start.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals are
> >> >> converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
> >> >
> >> > A REALLY good telescope may be able to see a
> >> > planetary atmosphere... and whether it changes colour,
> >> > say seasonally.
> >> >
> >> > If the alien life lives in a /star/, so much the better.
> >> >
> >> There's the rub. We don't HAVE telescopes that good and don't know how
> >> to make ones that powerful.
> >
> >Definitely time for a "Doc" Smith re-read, then!
> >
> >Actually, am I right in thinking that an extra-solar planet
> >will transit its star, as seen from here, at the same point
> >in its seasonal year each time? Although...... seasons can
> >come early or late, celestial mechanics notwithstanding.
>
> You're assuming it transits at all. What little we do know of
> extrasolar planetary atmospheres at this time comes mostly from such
> transits. However I believe that the ones for which results have been
> obtained were mostly gas giants, not small rocky planets.

I once asked a scientist doing these searches what proportion of systems
have an orbital plane which is in line with Earth, and in which we could
observe transits. I was told about 2%. So, for every planet we detect by
transit, there are around 50 more we don't see.

pt
J. Clarke
2018-05-01 23:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:29:19 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<***@excite.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 01:48:54 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:29:59 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <***@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 18:57:24 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>> ><***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >>We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of
>> >>environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you
>> >>present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we
>> >>should look for?
>> >
>> > We already know about that one.
>> >
>> > Thinking about how *else* life could arise can help us understand
>> >our case. (Just as knowing more than one language helps one
>> >understand one's own language better.)
>> >
>> > One idea of mine is to look for systems that have chemicals
>> >converting back and forth. (As with the oxygen - carbon dioxide cycle
>> >in Earth's biosphere.) This is, of course, no guarantee of life, but
>> >it is a start.
>>
>> Do you know of a method that will let us tell that "chemicals are
>> converting back and forth" at interstellar distances?
>
>A REALLY good telescope may be able to see a
>planetary atmosphere... and whether it changes colour,
>say seasonally.

It would have to be a lot better than any that we have or are likely
to build at any time in the near future.

>If the alien life lives in a /star/, so much the better.
Thomas Koenig
2018-04-29 18:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:
>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
>>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>>
>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
>> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
>> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
>> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
>> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>
> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are almost
> certainly completely different.
>
>
>
>>> We have no idea what other, non-Earth, living may or may not need. In some
>>> cases water is probably poisonness to them.
>>
>> We know organic chemistry pretty well.
>
> We may know *Earth-based* organic chemistry "pretty well" ... we know
> absolutely nothing about extraterrestrial organic chemistry.

Are you suggesting that, for example, the enthalpy of formation of
Methane is different on other worlds?

Or you actually not know what "organic chemistry" is?
Sjouke Burry
2018-04-28 20:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 27-4-2018 7:32, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> schrieb:
>
>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the belief that
>> life of any sort /must/ have water, which is moronically silly.
>
> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for complex
> molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such low energy,
> it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it allows for
> condensation reactions with polar leaving groups, it has
> very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...
>
>> We have
>> no idea what other, non-Earth, living may or may not need. In some
>> cases water is probably poisonness to them.
>
> We know organic chemistry pretty well.
>
Does anybody in this newsgroup realize,that looking for life in
our local sun system proves nothing?
For about 4 billion years earth life spores have been distributed
in the solar system, so life on some moon or planet can have a common
source.
Even today we find Martian rocks in Antarctica, which proves that
collisions with asteroids distribute bits and pieces between moons and
planets.
Live on earth might even have been (re)seeded form some of the other
moons/planets.

So if you want to find fresh life starts, look elsewhere in other solar
systems.
Oh, and not to close to our own system.......)
J. Clarke
2018-04-29 16:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 07:29:24 -0400, "Robert Clark"
<***@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> wrote:

>My opinion is we will soon launch missions to land on Europa and the other
>water-bearing moons of the Solar System. Some methods it could be
>accomplished in a low cost way are described here:
>
>Sample Return Missions from Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Ceres, page 1.
>https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/04/sample-return-missions-from-enceladus.html
>
>Low cost Europa lander missions.
>https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
>
>Scientists are increasingly coming to the opinion such water-bearing moons
>are likely to harbor life. If so, then humanity will have to come to grips
>with the idea of life on other worlds. How will we deal with that?
>
>Arthur C. Clarke famously discussed the discovery of life on Europa in
>"2010". And the recent film "Europa Report" did also.
>
>However, I'm looking for more in depth examinations of the effect of the
>discovery on life on Europa in science fiction. Things like, how we as
>humanity would respond to the discovery? And, if Europa had intelligent
>life, how would humans interact with them?
>
>Anyone know of any stories like that?
>
> Bob Clark
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Single-stage-to-orbit was already shown possible 50 years ago
>with the Titan II first stage.
>In fact, contrary to popular belief SSTO's are actually easy.
>Just use the most efficient engines and stages at the same time,
>and the result will automatically be SSTO.
>Blog: Http://Exoscientist.blogspot.com
>------------------------------------------------------------------

I keep seeing this in your sig. So on what occasion did a Titan II
first stage actually achieve orbit? If it didn't happen it wasn't
"shown to be possible" except in some theoretical sense. If you want
to claim that it was "shown to be possible" without a proof of
concept, one can equally argue that the disappearance of certain
manhole cover demonstrated this in a particular nuclear test.
Loading...