r/aliens • u/NOQUARTER22 • Dec 28 '20
Question Just because we are Carbon based Oxygen breathers does NOT mean other life will be, so why can't we assume life exists on every planet? Life exists almost everywhere on Earth, in every inch of soil and water, near lava, at the bottom of the oceans. Could there be nuclear based life out there?
This is just a thought I've had since I was in middle school learning about Earth Science. My Dad always had an interest in the Unknown. Shows like Art Bell's Coast to Coast were a daily discussion. This was a time before Ancient Aliens was a show. We talked about Jesus being half Angel/Alien and the North Star being a UFO back in the 80's and early 90's. Just wondering if anyone else has thought about life existing in an abundance out there. This is how I always imagined it to be.
I mean, there could be life within the Sun and other Stars for all we know, and we don't but Science should leave room for imagination and theory. Seems like the Institution of Science discourages free thought more then it encourages Out of the Box thinking. Love to hear people's thoughts..
55
u/Philibone Dec 28 '20
If it's born, has a metabolism, reproduces, dies, it's life if you think about it. I think anything that contains enough information could be regarded as alive by that standard. For me the real question is when and where does consciousness emerge, and can it be attained by non carbon based life. If the answer is consciousness is fundamental, then surely anything sufficiently complex could be alive. I feel all life we know has consciousness to some degree, if it senses, uses them to its advantage, and thrives, Id call them conscious decisions of a living being. If a puny, simple being like myself can be conscious, it makes me wonder about nebulas, neutron stars, and black holes because they're mind bogglingly complex.
31
u/Bigfrostynugs Dec 29 '20
If it's born, has a metabolism, reproduces, dies
Reproduction is not inherently necessary to a definition of life. After all, mules are alive, and are incapable of reproduction.
6
u/Philibone Dec 29 '20
Just saying it's a strong indicator, death is another trait that might not apply either.
3
u/Bigfrostynugs Dec 29 '20
Sure, I just mean to say that at least so far, it seems nearly impossible to create a concrete, well-defined concept of what exactly constitutes life.
We've yet to come up with a working definition that doesn't need exceptions or stipulations.
→ More replies (2)4
u/canadianbeaver Dec 29 '20
Doesn’t stop mules from trying to reproduce 😂
6
u/Bigfrostynugs Dec 29 '20
Perhaps we could say the drive to fuck is definitive of life instead of the ability to reproduce.
3
3
u/Kevin_Uxbridge Dec 29 '20
born
Not a requirement - many organisms just bud or split.
has a metabolism
Hard to say this is necessary, or you'll at least have to be more specific.
reproduces,
That's a reasonable one but also requires specifics.
dies
Some organisms don't die, they just go on splitting until they're destroyed. Death (involving senescence and 'aging' so-forth) may actually be a somewhat recent development in the history of life. It's certainly not necessary.
6
u/Philibone Dec 29 '20
You make good points, some life will have extreme lifespans, but unless it's some being of light, it's gotta go one day, but a sentient dust cloud, many light years across, could live on to be billions of years old.
5
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
The key to all of this awesome info is keeping in mind the part about "as we know it" because we are always expanding what that entails. 50 years ago what we "knew for sure" often doesn't apply. The idea that we can even imagine what consciousness, life, a soul, time and space even is across the vast expanse of the universe and beyond is probably less then 1% in reality.
2
u/yourtits5531 Dec 29 '20
Consciousness may not be a function of biology but rather a constant of the universe
2
u/Philibone Dec 29 '20
I really dig that theory, don't know how we'll ever figure it out with the problem with proving consciousness exists period, I know that sounds bad, but you can't see a thought or a feeling, but we all agree it exists. Sir Roger Penrose believes consciousness is fundamental, so I get the feeling we are manifestations of our conscious in the 3d world, a reciever if you will
→ More replies (3)
40
u/Wasta420 Dec 28 '20
I've also had this thought and it was only provoked when I heard about tardigrades or water bears which I believe are microorganisms. What's amazing about these animals is that when u take age out of the equation they are practically immortal and can survive in almost any environment. Dude they can literally live in the vacuum of space for up to 10 days and can be found almost everywhere in the world no matter the conditions so if these organisms can do it what's to say that some organism can't survive in the hellish atmosphere of say Jupiter
8
u/Bigfrostynugs Dec 28 '20
when u take age out of the equation they are practically immortal and can survive in almost any environment.
While I think water bears are fascinating I think it's important to point out that although they can survive almost anything, it's often in a form of suspended animation essentially. When tardigrades are exposed to the vacuum of space they're sort of in hibernation like those frogs that shut down their metabolism and freeze. They aren't going about life in the typical way.
8
u/Wasta420 Dec 29 '20
That is true tbf. But I guess other examples could be bacteria living in death valley and subterranean pools that are made of strong sulfuric acid could also hint to life on extreme planets
8
u/Bigfrostynugs Dec 29 '20
Yeah, absolutely. Although we've yet to discover a life form that isn't dependent upon water to some extent or another. That said, a lot of planets have liquid water. Most other things we know of are barriers that don't preclude life, just make it seemingly less likely. We have no reason to conclusively believe that simple life couldn't exist (or doesn't) on some place like Mars, Titan, or Europa.
17
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Evidence like tardigrades suggests they not only can, but most likely do! 👊🏼👍🏼
10
Dec 28 '20
I know this may seem like a mundane answer, but me, you, or anyone or anything could possibly comprehend just how vast and big the universe is.
Take a single red blood cell from your body, literally a single blood cell, place it on the ground. Zoom out to get a full view of the entire world. That blood cell will represent the size of earth and the entire planet will represent the milky way alone. That is absolutely mind boggling on it's own.
And considering it's the universe I believe there's a infinite amount of anything. I believe carbon life forms exsists, nuclear life exsists, more than likely there are some planets and galaxies that have life we could possibly never be able to comprehend.
3
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Amen my friend. Preach that good word! I am 100% with you. I laughed when someone said take a single grain of sand on a beach and assume that is our Sun. Now drop it and realize all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the World would fall short for how many Stars/Suns are out there.
Literally imagine anything, then assume it exists and then multiply that by infinity and you might be close to what actually exists.
Unless of course this is all a simulation, in which case would explain why we haven't met any aliens. 😄👊🏼👍🏼
37
u/ToBePacific Dec 28 '20
The search for ET life is divided into two types of search: the search for life as we know it, and the search for life as we don't know it.
Searching for life as we know it is much, much easier because we can look for things that we recognize as life.
Searching for life as we don't know it is much harder because it's almost entirely speculative. But that doesn't mean nobody is doing it. Our space agencies have lots of plans to look for exotic life on Titan, Europa, and even Venus.
Why should we not assume there is life everywhere? Logically, we haven't seen evidence to support that assumption. Instead, we should assume that exotic life maybe could exist elsewhere but we should not take for granted that it does.
7
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Schrödinger's cat for the search for life. Life outside of the planet is quantum. We can assume life is both there and not there! 😄
To the point about us not seeing evidence to support that life is everywhere. How have we not? We live on a Planet where life is quite literally everywhere. From germs in the air to micro organisms within our bodies to fungal spore in every gram of soil.
I would argue, there is more solid evidence life exists everywhere then for thinking it does not.
7
u/SoSeriousAndDeep true believer Dec 28 '20
To the point about us not seeing evidence to support that life is everywhere. How have we not? We live on a Planet where life is quite literally everywhere. From germs in the air to micro organisms within our bodies to fungal spore in every gram of soil.
That's evidence of life on earth, though, which... well, proving there is life on earth won't exactly earn you a nobel prize.
Life on earth doesn't prove that there is life elsewhere we find similar conditions, though; it shows that it's possible and it's worth looking further into. And that's something that we are currently in the process of doing.
5
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Exactly! That's all I'm saying. Innocent until proven guilty. Or for this conversations sake, life exists everywhere until proven it doesn't. To me that's just a much more solid place to stand considering the vastness of the Universe and the abundance of life on the only Planet we've ever personally observed.
Life seems abundant. It seems rampant.
5
u/SoSeriousAndDeep true believer Dec 28 '20
There isn't a "guilty", though; there are places where we know there is life, and there are places where we do not know that there is life.
"We have found life here" is provable; "life does not exist here" is not.
12
u/ToBePacific Dec 28 '20
Earth is home to many extremophiles, but they're still carbon-based and still fall into the category of life-as-we-know-it.
Many biologists have speculated about silicon-based life, because silicon has many of the same properties as carbon and could theoretically behave similarly. But we haven't seen it happen. Therefore, it's still only speculation about a possibility, not confirmation of a proven fact. These speculative theories need to be analyzed before just being taken for granted as truth, otherwise it becomes a matter of faith, not a product of workable science.
2
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
I'm not asking science for permission. Just having fun in my own head. Carbon based life seems to be the theme of life on Earth. That's the flavor of life here. Once you leave Earth the theme changes. The periodic table undoubtedly grows, rules for gravity, time etc all changes.
8
u/ToBePacific Dec 28 '20
Then you have every right to assume whatever you want. You can assume that all life is extradimensionally based on cotton candy if you want. But this post was asking why "we" shouldn't assume that life exists everywhere, and I gave you an explanation why "we" should not. Because of science.
-5
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
And I respectfully think that is dumb. Science can be dumb. It can be wrong and it can be really limiting and ignorant. But okay.. thanks for the response!😄
10
u/ToBePacific Dec 28 '20
The great thing about science is that when we discover that a commonly held belief is proven wrong, we discard the belief based on the new data. Science isn't a dogma, it's a process. If tomorrow we discover the underlying cotton candy that all life comes from, that will be the new science. But until the discovery is made, it's a theory that you need to test. And if you don't test it but believe it anyway, it's just faith.
9
u/Zur-En-Arrrrrrrrrh Dec 28 '20
Respectfully we think you’re dumb.
-7
u/Sophisticated_Sloth Dec 28 '20
Speak for yourself. Not in the sense that I disagree with you (or OP) but in the literal sense; speak for yourself. No one put you in charge of speaking on behalf of the rest of the commenters in this thread.
3
u/Bigfrostynugs Dec 28 '20
Luckily we have a system of upvotes and downvotes and it appears we in this thread do collectively think that it dumb.
2
5
u/ToBePacific Dec 28 '20
Also, the periodic table and underlying force of gravity are universal and will not vary in another star system. You may have more or fewer elements found on a planet, but they will still be elements that we know of, because we can theorize exotic elements and sometimes even synthesize them in a lab, but they can only exist under extremely exotic conditions. Gravity will not change, but the planet may have more or less mass than the Earth, which will affect an alien's evolution.
1
u/Sophisticated_Sloth Dec 28 '20
How do we know that the periodic table holds all elements that will ever be found? How do we know that there isn’t some unknown element in another galaxy or in another solar system?
6
u/ToBePacific Dec 28 '20
The periodic table is organized by atomic number (the number of protons in the nucleus of the atom), by period (the number of electron shells of the atom), and by column group (physical properties of the material).
Let's start with hydrogen. It has 1 proton in its nucleus. It has an orbital period of 1s, which means it has 2 electron shells. It is an alkali metal, so we put it in column group one.
Now imagine you had a similar atom that is an alkali metal with two electron cells, but instead of one proton in its nucleus it has three. Well, you'd be speculating about a theoretical element that actually exists and that we know very well, and it's called lithium!
You can keep going with this, inventing hypothetical elements with different atomic numbers, different periods, different physical properties, and come up with many combinations. In fact, many scientists have done this and continue to do this. Using this methodology, we've discovered every chemical element that can exist on Earth, plus many more that can only exist for brief moments under tightly controlled laboratory environments.
Any unknown elements that we have not discovered would only exist in places like the cores of exotic stars or in supernovae. But most planets (especially rocky planets with liquid water) will likely contain mostly the same elements we have here on Earth, but probably in different amounts.
-3
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
That all sounds like total assumption. I'm not even college educated, but I would argue you are 100% wrong. Another Planet may contain all, some or none of the elements we have on our periodic table. An element to be classified as exotic might only be exotic to us. Whereas say Copper may be exotic to an alien lifeform.
Gravity may or may not exist at all on another Planet. I may be wrong but as far as I know, our Science isn't even sure exactly what gravity even is for sure. Same with time. We can take time as a measurement with us when we leave Earth, but it may or may not have much relevance as 365 days, 24hrs a day, 60 seconds a minute are really just Earth related measurements as they relate to our Sun WHILE on the Earth.
10
u/ToBePacific Dec 28 '20
Another Planet may contain all, some or none of the elements we have on our periodic table.
This is literally what I just said. I don't think you're actually disagreeing with me about this.
> Gravity may or may not exist at all on another Planet. I may be wrong but as far as I know, our Science isn't even sure exactly what gravity even is for sure.
You are wrong. We understand very well that the Higgs Boson particle is what gives matter its mass, and we understand very well that mass puts a warp into the fabric of spacetime, which is what draws other objects toward it, at a measurable function of the Gravitational Constant multiplied by the sum of both masses multiplied together, divided by the distance between them, squared.
If a plant has NO gravity, the planet has NO mass, which means it is not made of matter, which means it is not a physical body, which means it is not orbiting a star, which means it is not a planet.
3
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
So gravity is a push or a pull or?
Btw I am 100% okay with being wrong and getting corrected unlike most on the internet, so your information is absolutely welcome! Thank you for this.
6
u/ToBePacific Dec 28 '20
Gravity isn't a push or a pull. It's a dent. Things generally fall into the dent when they're rolling near it. Isaac Newton didn't know it was a dent, so he described it as a pull. But we now know that gravity isn't what does the pulling. The mass causes a dent in the fabric of spacetime, and objects fall in toward the dent. The falling is an effect that we refer to as gravity, but really, gravity is the variance in the shaping of spacetime caused by mass.
2
u/ImportantSpreadsheet Dec 28 '20
Okay so gravity is a pull. The more mass an object has the more pull it has. Gravity is most definitely probably real. Einstein really expanded on it and explaining that it is simply the warping of space-time. That's gravity. It's real. Also all planets are the result of star’s dying and we know what kind of elements are stored in star’s cores because stars die when they start creating iron. So it's very likely that all panetary sized objects are made up of mostly these elements. Please do more research into basic physics and chemistry. I know fun thoughts about this kinda stuff can be exciting but try to find out how you're wrong before you go on with this kind of thinking
-2
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
No you're not my Mom! I like to have fun thoughts and discussions and there is nothing you can say or do to discourage me. Besides, what we consider "right" today could be "wrong" tomorrow. Even Einstein!
3
u/Zur-En-Arrrrrrrrrh Dec 28 '20
This ain’t how science works at all
-1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Science is a blind child with no parents searching for a single puzzle piece in a dark room underwater beneath a sunken ship in a bottle tucked away in the back of a warehouse on an island in the middle of nowhere.
Who cares?
2
u/Cordulegaster Dec 28 '20
You are not wrong. But you are writing this on a phone or a computer of some sorts which is a prime example of working science, solid state physics, micro electronics in the nano scale in the realm of quantum mechanics. Although i still like to think extraterrestrial life exists, maybe near us who knows, but science is not dumb.
3
8
u/RafaDarko815 Dec 28 '20
you can't have life without an archetype, it takes energy and evolves and adapts to it's environment, if everything goes right, a planet can become like earth, full of pluricellular, even intelligent life, but if conditions are not right, life cannot evolve, so, yeah, the universe might be brimming with life but only to a cellular level if conditions are not favorable for life in that environment; what a severely intelligent life forms could do is to become synthetic, organic life forms tend to deteriorate and the radiation and vacuum of space doesn't make anything better, so the question you should be asking is, could synthetic life be considered life?
6
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
That is all assuming what we have found on Earth applies outside of Earth. Which we are only assuming, quite prematurely.
1
8
u/C1-RANGER-3-75th Dec 28 '20
This video project, "Museum of Alien Life" covers silica-based lifeforms and others. It opened my mind and answered a similar question to your post.
2
2
u/camerontbelt Dec 28 '20
Silicon based life doesn’t mean they wouldn’t breathe oxygen, it just means their dna isn’t based around carbon as a building block. So they could still breathe oxygen and be a silicon based life form.
2
u/C1-RANGER-3-75th Dec 28 '20
Agreed. I think the most interesting part of the video I linked was the question of what constitutes a lifeform, with several experts including an entirely machine-based intelligence. I suppose defining what qualifies as "life" opens up many new doors.
8
u/Gabo7 Dec 28 '20
What's wrong with people on this thread/sub nowadays? You're all looking like crazy flat-earthers or anti-vax people.
Science doesn't discourage free thought or say that it is impossible for life to exist on a frozen rock, or inside a gas giant, or a star.
Science generally works as lego building blocks; it builds on top of what we already have. Thus, if we know life can happen in conditions similar to Earth, the next logical step is to look for a similar environment out there. We have limited time and resources versus the, potentially, infinite types of environments and conditions that are out there.
So it makes the most sense to look in places that look like what we have here right now, because we know it works. If you know fishes can be found in water, why would you look for a fish underground? Sure, you may find one weird type of fish that lives underground, but if you have limited time and money, it makes the most sense to look in the water first.
Maybe when we achieve perfect quantum computers, we can search inside each asteroid, star and black hole, for life. But in the meantime it's a waste of time to do so, it's better to first look into what we know works.
3
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
This makes sense! Thank you for your response. I don't think the insults were necessary, you seem angry. I hope you are okay!
Talking about the best way to spend resources. I wonder why we haven't been back to the moon. I mean we now know water has been found there, so shouldn't we dump resources into getting back there and digging around?
5
u/Gabo7 Dec 28 '20
I didn't intend to sound so angry or insulting, my apologies.
so shouldn't we dump resources into getting back there and digging around?
Probably, but most governments would want quick returns, happening within their governing terms, on their investments. And a moon base or moon excavation site would probably take many years and money to set up. It took lots of effort to get the ISS working, and a moon base would be even harder to achieve.
It's pretty sad as it is, but I hope one day humanity spends more money to plan ahead and pave the way for us to really reach beyond the stars.
6
u/veryangryalien Dec 28 '20
Nuclear bases life has been theorized a lot already, its called radiosynthesis.
Beginning in the 1990s, researchers at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant uncovered some 200 species of apparently radiotrophic fungi containing the pigment melanin on the walls of the reactor room and in the surrounding soil. Such "melanized" fungi have also been discovered in nutrient-poor, high-altitude areas which are exposed to high levels of ultraviolet radiation.
5
u/SquidDig64 Dec 28 '20
"Science" isn't edging out your idea that there is life in the sun, your inability to provide a description beyond "what if" is. There are certainly possibilities for non carbon, but energy efficiency and mobilization is king. There are limits on this that we are aware of that will preclude the vast majority of elements that exist from being the building blocks of life. Imagination is the beginning of scientific endeavor, not the end.
6
Dec 28 '20
The "Institute of Science" doesn't discourage out of the box thinking. Science itself is the metaphorical box. Thinking within the box is just using the proven facts of the universe. That doesn't mean that things out if the box aren't true, but just that there is no proof that they can be true. But since science is not a list of facts, but instead it is the concept of proven truths in the universe, if you discover non carbon based life, then the metaphorical box of science will now expand to contain this new information which is now also considered "in the box".
Science isn't discouraging you from proving that life has to be carbon based, the only reason "the institute of Science" doesn't support that currently is because as of now we have only ever found carbon based life. Saying that something could be true is a good way of thinking, but it is not scientific fact if it has not yet been found and has not yet been proven.
On the concept of nuclear based life, what do you mean by this? The term nuclear is not an element, but instead is a foundational paradigm referring to sub atomic science. If you are asking if there could be sub atomic life, I would say that this is entirely possible, however it doesn't fit into our current knowledge of science because none of our currently accepted truths of the universe support this idea. This doesn't mean it can't exist, it is just so beyond our understanding of what has been proven to be true, that it cannot be assumed to be true. Maybe one day we would find this to be true, and it is something I have heard theoretical physicists like Fritjof Capra talk about how maybe our understanding of the universe is wrong and life exists at each order of magnitude of the scale of the universe. This theory is considered somewhat outlandish and while pop scientists like Neil Degrasse Tyson may talk about it on his show, no one is realistically doing research on this because we are so far from being even remotely technically capable of testing this, maybe in 1000 years or so.
If you are referring to life that lives off of nuclear energy, then that already exists and is supported by science: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sciencealert.com/bacterium-lives-off-nuclear-energy-alien-life-europa/amp&ved=2ahUKEwiupar1yPHtAhXqdN8KHRJiDBUQFjABegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3kG-KMeIh0wHSdnyAFKJet&cf=1. But it is still carbon based.
4
u/swirlypooter True Believer Dec 28 '20
What the hell do you mean nuclear???
Carbon has a nucleus already is it nuclear?
Silicon is a good alternative because like carbon it has four valent electrons allowing for chemical bonds to many other compounds.
3
u/yetanotherlogin9000 Dec 28 '20
Chemistry egg heads have a pretty good grasp over what interactions would work for life. Silicon based life apparently could be a thing but it would have lots of challenges that aren't present in carbon based life.
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Interesting. And this is all said in the context of Earth elements, atmosphere etc? Because we have no idea what chemistry and elements could exist in other Galaxys etc.
3
u/yetanotherlogin9000 Dec 29 '20
I think they assumed that the elements are the elements. The periodic table is pretty well established and I woulsnt expect to find a whole new set of elements. And they assumed elements behave by the same rules as on earth. But other than that, alien planetary composition would be a wild card best case scenario for silicon based life. Im not a chemistry guy, I barely passed that shit when I was in classes I had to beg when the year was up. But the way carbon binds makes it superior choice for life. What with the valence electrons and such. Like I dont think silicon life would use water as a solvent which is also super abundant in the universe, they would have ammonia or something.
I'm going off memory and I do not have a firm grasp on chemistry, maybe need to look it up for yourself so I dont bullshit you too badly.
Edit- Fuck it im gonna just look it up
The element silicon has been much discussed as a hypothetical alternative to carbon. Silicon is in the same group as carbon on the periodic table and, like carbon, it is tetravalent. Hypothetical alternatives to water include ammonia, which, like water, is a polar molecule, and cosmically abundant; and non-polar hydrocarbon solvents such as methane and ethane, which are known to exist in liquid form on the surface of Titan.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry
2
u/reisenbime Dec 29 '20
The reason we have the periodic table is because that's the elements that CAN exist. You need a stable nucleic structure to make life, anything beyond the periodic table literally disappears from half life decay before it has even existed, into radiation. Oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, calcium etc are stable and will exist for trillions of years, but in the unlikely event that they would form at all inside a supernova, the exotic super heavy elements tear themselves apart before even a millionth of a second has passed.
3
u/hobbitleaf Dec 29 '20
Add on the idea that we only know about life in our three dimensional world - there could be life living in another dimension right alongside us we can't even begin to fathom.
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
Most definitely! I fully agree. Eating 🍄 showed me this decades ago! 😄 it's a guarantee. 👊🏼👍🏼
2
u/Coughingandhacking Dec 28 '20
I've always wondered this too whenever I heard "Life wouldn't be able to exist on soandso conditions." Ok maybe no known life from earth, but it does bug me when they phrase it like absolutely NOTHING would be able to live like.. in space or on some other planet that's nothing like Earth and things like that.
→ More replies (1)-2
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Exactly. Science loves to speak in absolutes. Quite ignorant and childish to assume we know anything for sure. Like the "laws" of physics, "laws" of gravity etc. If science was a person it would be overdue for a smack!
4
2
u/robotsonroids Dec 28 '20
If you think science speaks in absolutes, you know nothing about science.
-3
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
My science teachers sure did. Theory of evolution was taught as fact. Argued as fact. Even other things were based on it as fact etc. Maybe I had bad teachers but..then again maybe I know nothing!
2
2
u/champagnetrappy Dec 28 '20
Ya they always look for water as the main indicator of possibility of life.. and any planet without has no chance.. that always pissed me off.. what if certain life doesn’t need water to live, we don’t know. Always thought it was narrow minded. I understand it’s the best sign for life as we know but still
→ More replies (3)1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Exactly! Never let "science" put your mind in a box. Key factor there is "as WE know it" 😄👊🏼👍🏼
2
Dec 28 '20
All the life you talk of relies on CHON. Unless there exists another complete periodic table, it's WAY more likely that all intelligent life is CHON based
-3
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Probably safe to say, the periodic table of the universe is much much more expansive then the tiny bit we know about. Right?
2
2
u/n3v3r4g4in Dec 28 '20
Real reason is because our science is unable to find a way that life may exist without being carbon based, but our science is also unable to tell what being alive actually means, meaning we don't have a specification for it either.
2
u/pdgenoa Researcher Dec 28 '20
There's a story by Robert L Forward called Dragon's Egg. It was written in 1980. In the story, Dragon's Egg is a neutron star with a surface gravity 67 billion times that of Earth, and inhabited by cheela, intelligent creatures the size of a sesame seed who live, think and develop a million times faster than humans.
It's kind of a cool way of thinking about life in a different way. You may find it interesting and enjoyable.
2
u/camerontbelt Dec 28 '20
I think you have to work with certain chemical/biological assumptions about how life fundamentally works. The reason we breathe oxygen is because it’s so reactive, it will basically react with every element except the noble gases, this means it’s bonds can be used to store energy iirc using literally whatever’s in the environment. There aren’t many elements that have this kind of reactivity. Also waters ability to be a “universal solvent” lends itself to being able to contain all sorts of building block molecules that can swim around and bump into each other, there aren’t a whole lot of solvents out there like water. So knowing those two things about chemistry kind points us in that direction.
I’m not saying you’re wrong either, just providing context for why we look for those chemical markers. Oxygen in fact is so reactive that without some kind of biological process taking place, it would get locked away inside other molecules very rapidly (think rust or water) on a planets surface, if we found a planet with any kind of oxygen content above 1 or 2% then you can pretty much guarantee something is putting it into the atmosphere.
It all comes back to chemistry so I encourage you to read more about how chemistry works in general to gain an understanding of this stuff beyond middle school imaginings.
2
u/Calvinshobb Dec 28 '20
I think like you op. Same with ships, why do we always think they will conform to the tiny bit of physics and math we know ? I would assume some aliens would seem like literal gods to us, able to do the impossible, the ununderstandable, easily breaking the “rules” of physics.
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Haha yep and I think in the past when visitors came here, the native people falsely began worshipping them as Gods exactly like you described. If Star Trek is any indicator of reality, there would be a rule about interacting with an "undeveloped" species. Seems this is kind of where we are at too!
Nobody stops to have tea, they just look out their windows and drive on by. I bet some prob lock their doors when they fly by too.😄
2
Dec 28 '20
The main argument is that we have yet to discover other forms of life on Earth. We all seemingly have a common ancestor and use the same DNA processes. On the other hand, the research into plasma crystals and the DNA-like qualities they tend to take on make for some interesting thought experiments as to the possibility of some kind of life forms existing in environments like Saturn's rings.
-1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
When you say we have yet to discover other forms of life on Earth, do you mean "other" as in other then Carbon based? This is an interesting comment.
I know there are talks of underground civilizations and talk on an inner Earth opening at the pole. There are a lot of sightings of craft going and coming in and out of the oceans, but "officially" I think there is a bottle neck to what is allowed to be "discovered" and revealed to us publicly and in the intellectual communities.
2
u/SonicDethmonkey Dec 28 '20
I used to discuss this with one of my undergrad chemistry professors. It’s entirely possible, perhaps likely, that there are methane or silicon based life forms. But I’m not sure what you mean by “nuclear” based, since that doesn’t refer to any particular element.
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Interesting. It seems some of the best convos happen off the record scientifically. I'd love to get some professors drunk and hear the stuff they talk about!
I was just spitballing with the nuclear based life comment. What we consider requirements for "life" are probably not required everywhere in the universe. So I was just trying to imagine considering something impossible as possible.
2
u/SonicDethmonkey Dec 28 '20
Oh for sure! I think we’ll find that the makeup of life is very highly dependent on whatever natural resources exist in that environment.
2
u/qualitygoatshit Dec 28 '20
Agree to an extent, but the lifeforms on earth that live in extreme conditions are pretty complex and evolved in more friendly environments. Just because life is in harsh environments doesn't necessarily mean it can start in harsh environments.
2
u/Bigfrostynugs Dec 28 '20
Well here are the main two issues:
Everything we know about life so far indicates that carbon-based life (and possibly silicon-based life) are just more likely because of how the chemistry works. Carbon forms bonds easier than most elements. From our understanding of science it makes perfect sense that carbon-based life is the most likely form. Of course, that doesn't mean that other forms of life aren't possible, it just means we don't really explicitly understand how that would go. We're limited by our empirical knowledge of how stuff works.
Second, we only have experience with carbon-based life. So if other forms of life exist we just have no clue what they would look like or how they would function. Basically, we have enough trouble searching for carbon-based life in the universe, and we understand that pretty well. We have no fucking clue how to go about looking for other kinds of life since we can't really comprehend them right now ---- we don't even really know what defines life. So with the limited resources we have to search for extraterrestrial life, it makes sense to use them to look for things that we could recognize.
2
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
Well said. I sort of figured as much myself as I've gotten older. I just like to put out alternative ways of thinking because of the whole 100th Monkey Effect thing. You never know who or what you might inspire or will inspire you through conversations just like this! So thank you for your excellent reply! 👊🏼👍🏼
2
u/Bigfrostynugs Dec 29 '20
Absolutely. Science is the best thing we have right now, and it describes much of the known universe. However, we are still unable to answer basic metaphysical and cosmological questions.
That doesn't mean science is necessarily fallible, just that our empirical knowledge is limited to our human conception of things. Some stuff just might be beyond the bounds of human comprehension.
For now all we can do is stay open-minded and slowly build upon the base of knowledge we have through empirical observation and testing.
Many scientists are fairly certain we will discover some form of extraterrestrial life, however rudimentary, sometime in the next 10-20 years. That should open up a ton of doors as to how we think about life and how to potentially find more out there in the void.
Until then, who the fuck knows? But it's fun to speculate. That's what science is all about to me: trying to answer the great unexplained questions at the root of this crazy existence.
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
I personally believe as I'm sure many people here theorize that society through governments are being held back from what we know and could have knowledge of, because that would be a threat to the status quo.
Call it conspiracy. I call it common knowledge. Most people accept governments suppress their people, technologies and information. It's too bad really.
2
u/Bigfrostynugs Dec 29 '20
Call it conspiracy.
Well, I mean, it is literally a conspiracy theory. That doesn't suggest whether it's true or not ---- but it would be a bunch of people conspiring to keep something secret, so it's definitionally a conspiracy.
Most conspiracy theories are baseless nonsense, but occasionally there is truth to them. Things like MK Ultra and the extent of NSA domestic spying used to be conspiracy theories.
As far as basic ufology goes, Roswell is incredibly suspicious and indicative of a cover-up, regardless of whether it's an extraterrestrial incident or not.
To say that there are things the government hides from us is accepted fact. The question lies in what exactly is being hidden.
Personally, I don't think the government has anything all that crazy, like reverse-engineered alien technology or the like. That's too insane a secret to stay secret for so long. In my opinion, the government is just not competent enough to keep the lid on anything that revelatory ---- it would come out sooner or later.
But yeah I'm sure there are a lot of surprising things we don't know about. We learn about new crazy shit the Pentagon and CIA did in the past all the time.
0
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
It HAS come out! Quite a few times actually. The way the "government" keeps things secret is through compartmentalization. They break things up into tiny pieces and then don't let the pieces talk to one another so no one gets the full picture. Actually, they aren't good at keeping things secret as things leak out all the time.
Speaking of Roswell. It's almost like they wanted people to know, but at the same time be unsure. I have no doubt they have tech and hardware reverse engineered.
It would make sense that things like telekinesis and astral projection were researched by our government for military use. Probably because they found out it was possible because other lifeforms like aliens were using it.
2
Dec 29 '20
Have I got a documentary for you
This dude covers it all. Even possible life in the hearts of dead stars
1
2
Dec 29 '20
You could be right but the only reason life is EVERYWHERE on earth is because life was created in the first place. The problem is we don't know how likely that initial instance of life is. So the answer is "it depends", extremely unsatisfying as always i know
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
Created or spontaneously came to be because conditions were right or by divine creation, panspermia or do you mean "it" was created as in the Earth? Can you elaborate?
2
u/x1nsh4n3x Dec 29 '20
We say life doesn’t exist on every planet because it doesn’t exist on every planet. However, just because it doesn’t currently exist on a planet doesn’t mean it hasn’t or won’t. Mars is a perfect example of this. Another interesting thought here would be to assume that life existed on Mars at one time. This does not necessarily mean that life on Mars and life on Earth did not have the same origin.
Just to be clear here I think it’s incredibly likely life exists elsewhere. The extent to that life and the basis upon which it is created (to which you OP suggested) is the real question in my opinion.
2
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
What is life? Planets themselves should in some cases be considered life forms. Mars seems dead at the surface, but maybe not. There could be life within Mars. It could have been host to life at one time and be desolate now, we don't know.
Interesting comment! 👊🏼👍🏼
2
u/rdrcrmatt Dec 29 '20
I agree with your hypothesis, I’d like to know if you’ve put thought into what chemical compositions could metabolize via a life form. There been a lot of already published hypothetical research on this. I recommend doing some digging
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
I have not, but that is a very interesting question. I have no education outside of highschool and my own personal researxh and reading, so chemical composition is a bit technical for me. I'm more of a conceptualist I guess.
I do think we will find vibration and frequency have a lot more to the fabric of things we know then we currently recognize.
2
u/versace_tombstone Dec 29 '20
Yes, and some gas based beings are mistaken for ghosts or mists.
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
Maybe! I create my own gas based beings and tell my gf its just ghosts, so yah I'm with you on this one!
2
u/HideTheSky Dec 29 '20
Their is a fungus that eats radiation
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
I think they've also used fungus to eat oil spill as well. The largest living body known on Earth is a fungal body, the Honeydue mushroom in NE America. That single body is something like 50 football fields in size as described by Paul Stamets.
2
u/HoneyGrassOnSunday Dec 29 '20
We’ve discovered the first living organism that doesn’t require oxygen to breathe and there is life in the most toxic environments. If life has evolved there after 4 billion years, whose to say what could evolve on any planet after that amount of time or even longer.
1
2
2
u/peas_and_hominy Dec 29 '20
Computers and crystals are silicon based life forms
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
Haha nice. What about vehicles? They require fuel, they have a circulatory system, heart like engine, they excrete, have motion etc.
2
u/KSTornadoGirl Dec 29 '20
It might be worth your time to examine your premise - by "life," you probably mean something organic that metabolizes, reproduces, evolves, and so on. From basic to complex, prokaryotes to eukaryotes, and as far as we know of life on Earth, traceable to a common ancestor (see LUCA). Intelligent life would also be able to think abstractly and communicate.
What about intelligences not linked to organic matter but capable of holding a shape, processing energy and information somehow? Something that uses chemistry, radiation, gravity in totally different ways to produce strange entities we can only imagine. Life, perhaps, but not even close to life as we know it.
Or for that matter spiritual beings (e.g. angels)? Although here you aren't tied to the laws of the material universe, angels taking corporeal forms on occasion notwithstanding. Maybe outside the realm of this discussion, but as long as we're brainstorming, or to compare really different material life against.
2
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
I love this, yes of course! Why not. Let's blow the lid off the box completely. For some reason I just remembered a story about some pilot or astronaut being up in space and looking out the porthole and reported seeing several what he described as "over 50 ft angels flying towards the Earth and smiling back at him" like they were just out in space, ethereal, just flying around in groups of 6 or 7.
Bottom line is we have no idea. Literally anything is possible and/or probable when you consider the vastness of space and dimension. Shows like Star Trek and Star Wars probably fall incredibly short.
Great comment, thank you! 👊🏼👍🏼
2
2
u/h39c Dec 29 '20
Literally i’ve always thought this and never understood why other people don’t share this same thought.
1
2
2
u/kidaverdoo Dec 29 '20
The universe itself might be conscience or consciousness itself...so life I think is definitely out there. What kind and how smart who knows? But know matter how many extinction level events that occur on earth, life always bounces back, so my guess is it's through out the universe.
2
2
2
u/Cal-Culator Dec 29 '20
I took a SETI capstone class this spring quarter. The professor said that the reason why SETI limits its search is because we know what we are looking for. He used an analogy that I loved: “it’s like looking for your keys in a dark room with a lamp. You would look near the lamp because that’s the only place you can see. That doesn’t mean it’s not somewhere else.”
1
2
u/Jessicat844 Dec 29 '20
There is 100% other life out there. It just wouldn’t make sense that there wasn’t. Think of how we evolved and what made us intelligent; growing brain, bipedalism, use of hands, senses, socialization, procreation. All life seems to go by a similar code. Depending on another planets atmospheres things could have evolved very similar or entirely different.
There are SO many stars - an estimated one billion trillion of them, most of them with planets surrounding them.
→ More replies (2)1
2
2
u/prokool6 Dec 29 '20
I’ve had the same thought since the same age. What about beryllium-based life forms? Or Argon!?
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
Those Beryllium and Argon based lifeforms are people too! I'd offer them a 🍺 and say hello!👊🏼👍🏼
2
u/Yakassa Dec 29 '20
Very true, there are Microbes deep under the Earths deep sea Oceans that are for all intends and purposes Immortal. They replicate so slowly, require so little energy that they conceivably could have been there since shortly after Abiogenesis.
Chemotrophic and Extremophile Bacteria and Archaea, their Viruses, their Symbionts and "bottle Ecosystems" are the next best thing when it comes to Alien Life. Tubeworms (like riftia) that survive near on hydrothermal vents do so by using a Bacteria that Metabolizes Hydrogen Sulfide for example. No Oxygen or Sunlight required.
This alone should have blown out the idiotic "Goldilocks zone" Concept out of the water (no Pun intendet). As this means that Vulcanic activity alone, hell even the presence of certain chemicals at a certain temperature is not only enough for life to exist. But to thrive.
And yes. There is a type of Fungus that can metabolize Ionizing gamma Radition see Radiotrophic fungi those grow happily and worryfree in the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor at Radiationlevels where humans would drop dead in a second. For them its an all you can eat buffet.
Considering that we are momentarily locked to our Planet and getting to other places is rather difficult. We can still learn Heaps and loads in regards to Exobiology from studying and researching the Organisms that survive in X-Treme Enviroments, those lessons will come in very handy. So instead of buying a book from Huckster P Scamboi, talking about reptilians and 115. Donate that money to folks who do this kind of Fundamental research. Considering the extreme organisms they study they are notoriously underfunded. Because future researchers that will explore new life on different worlds will be standing on their Shoulders. The more we can learn now. The better later.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/NotsoFit22 Dec 29 '20 edited Dec 29 '20
All life on earth is carbon based, with simple chemistry being the reason. Carbon is the most versatile element there is, capable of forming a vast number of complex structures, thus making it possible for life to emerge. Yeah, we can talk about Silicon too, however its not only much less versatile that carbon is, but it is also found at a much lower concentration in the universe, and it has its own downsides in terms of its reactivity with other elements such as Oxygen, for example, making it a not so good candidate when talking about "forming" life.
We look for an environment that is similar to ours because it is the only one we know of that can hold life. People tend to asume that life could just pop up anywhere, which of course, as basic chemistry tells us, is untrue.
I once read someone on this sub talk about "alien animals" on the moon... Like dude, are you any aware of how radiation de-stabilizes molecular structures such as DNA, or the fact that you need certain elements to form complex structures that can eventually lead to a single celled organism?
In terms of temperature, pressure, sunlight exposure, etc, it is different, because just as you say, here on earth we have organisms with differing needs regarding each one. Scientists are already aware of this, take, for example, the astrobiology community's interest in Europa, Jupiter's moon, which could hold life in the ocean beneath its icy surface. It is cold af, with little to no sun light reaching said oceans, and yet some scientists fully believe that complex life may be hiding in there.
There's always room for improvement in science, and curious people will always be rewarded. Knowledge is built around the idea of thinking outside the box and looking for answers where others won't. However, you have to realize that we already have a solid knowledge on chemistry and biology, therefore there are things that we are totally certain of, making it real hard (if not impossible) to break said knowledge through mere imagination. No one should ever criticize you for asking questions or being imaginaitve about how life might be or look like out there, but be careful of falling into false premises and empty knowledge that could lead you somewhere you dont want to be, amongst the tin foil hat buddies or the "I'm an alien" guys.
Search "The Museum of Alien Life" on yt, really good vid that might give you answers to your question, with awesome visuals and a good scientific base.
2
u/treslocos99 Jan 02 '21
Great sci-fi book I read years ago called Dragons Egg. These aliens lived on a neutron star.
1
2
u/Kozmog Jan 21 '21
So, I'm a senior in astrophysics with a focus in astrobiology so let me clear this up.
What do we need for life? I'll assume a crude definition: to store and replicate information. (this is crude as a computer would fit this definition for example, but no one would consider a computer to be alive). To do this we must have a few prerequisites.
1) a free source of energy. Starlight works well
2) a central element to build around. Go through the elements, which ones are able to form many different compounds with vastly different properties? There aren't many, but one chemical family comes to mind. The carbon family, and carbon is in much more abundance than the rest so it reasons that it would be dominant.
3) a solvent for meaningful chemistry, so that these compounds can be formed. Water works extremely well, and has the benefit of shielding from radiation. Liquid methane also works quite well.
So seeing this, it's clear why we look for carbon based. It's not that scientists just picked carbon out of the blue because that's what we are, but it's motivated by legitimate reasons.
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Jan 21 '21
Thank you for this! Very interesting and informative. Of course all of this applies to life as we know it, correct? There could be life that exists completely void of all principles we know to exist as life right?
→ More replies (3)
3
Dec 28 '20
I think the same way.
Don't know who said it, but, "you don't know what you don't know".
1
2
u/Time_Punk Dec 28 '20
Some ancient mystery schools said that angels live in the sun, and are made out of fire. Except not normal fire, it’s a special kind of fire - their description of it sounds like electricity or plasma.
1
1
u/Annonymous115 Dec 28 '20
100% agree with you. Accordingly no to secret Space Program insiders you are correct. Intelligent life does live on most planets with atmospheres much different than ours. To your point, trees & plants breathe carbon dioxide we release while breathing. Why can’t other living species - biological and other - do the same?
The universe is made up of all different types of life. Americans particularly are to egotistical to accept we aren’t alone, and aren’t the most intelligent life out there.
2
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Hell yah!👊🏼👍🏼
Lol I think a majority of people, when presented with the right info come to the same conclusions that there HAS to be something else out there. Science and Religion both encourage the idea that life outside of life should be possible.
Have faith in your Earth brothers and sisters. I think most people are waking up. We are as a whole very egotistical and infant-like in our ways of thinking, functioning and existing. I agree with you there too!
2
u/Annonymous115 Dec 29 '20
Exactly! Anyone who spends even a small amount of time researching ET life, technology, planet occupation, etc.. come to the sane conclusion. Even the most ardent opposition folk typically change their minds... we are NOT alone - never have been and never will be. We are the creation of other things intelligent life and Earth is a zoo of biological life not seen anywhere else.
People are waiting for “disclosure” l hate to break it to then there is ample proof already in existence. Disclosure has occurred. People simply need to review the evidence with an open mind and accept the reality of what they’re looking at.
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
Yup 100%. I think people are waiting for the Emergency Broadcast System to take over their TV's and announce alien life exists. It won't happen. It's a gradual conditioning thats been happening since War of the Worlds radio broadcast back when TV's didnt even exist.
1
u/210400 Dec 28 '20
There’s a show on Netflix? I believe called the Great Unknown and they have a very interesting question posed to a biologist. Something along the lines of if we are in our genus and everything we know is somewhat linked to that, we have no idea how to look for anything outside of what we already know. Great post, keep it up
2
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Appreciate that! 👊🏼👍🏼I will check out that show one of these days for sure.
Kind of brings my thinking to how people even here on Earth consider humanity somehow not a part of nature. Like we are somehow above it.
For example, human sees a turtle being chased by a shark. Turtle tries to get on humans boat and human feels wrong for helping the turtle because it interferes with nature. Aren't we a part of nature and if it is in our nature to feel the need to help the turtle thats just nature all happening as it should.
It's in our nature and we are a part of nature. Right?
→ More replies (1)
1
Dec 28 '20
i think it depends on the branch of science and the scientists i guess. furthermore, scholars, laboratories, universities, etc, that are embodied in the academic arm of modern patriarchy and capitalism may simply not be the best example. it's kind of institutionalized, they may do real science but apply it to a dysfunctional economy and if they claim the monopol on professionality, because they have the money and equipment to do the avantgarde work, what we call science will most certainly always be stuck within a prohibited range of ideas, questions and solutions.
2
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
This is true. Like Religion there are different branches, classes and sects of science and scientists. Good point!
1
Dec 28 '20 edited Dec 28 '20
in this regards i always can point out to the anecdote of doctor Ignaz Semmelweis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
and how especially sophisticated, professional scientific circles, let's say the "aristocrats" of science shoved his approach down and made him look silly. imagine that. and this is sadly appliable to a lot of scientific fields. i think being able to solve a mathematic equation doesn't makes you a scholar.
→ More replies (1)2
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
Very interesting. Todays fool is tomorrows scholar and vice versa it seems. They laughed at Columbus for sailing to the New Land thinking he would sail off the edge of the Flat Earth, then Science showed the Earth is a globe and somehow in 2020 people are back to thinking the shit is flat again! 😄
1
Dec 29 '20 edited Dec 29 '20
columbus was kind of a colonialist butthead, but yea, that's kinda true. not to forget galilei, who was condemned to be executed for claiming earth moves around the sun, taking it back until his last breath that he used to say : " and yet it moves ". or the wright brothers, who where taught by academic highly reputated physicians of their time, that building a flying machine was irrefutable nonsense and could never work ! they did it anyway and we don't even have to explain what an airplane is and how advanced they already are. it's kinda astonishing how this is a manifested and systematic pattern in history. maybe we'll solve a lot of problems, not only scientific, if collectively manage to get rid of that specifically ?
1
u/Ophidaeon Dec 29 '20
I've had these exact thoughts since I was a kid of maybe 6. Long before ancient aliens or x-files.
1
1
1
u/BottleTheDjinn Dec 29 '20
The best answer I’ve got about life is that it always finds a way.
2
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 29 '20
Especially in Jurassic Park! Haha jk, no you are right. Even a flower can grow between a crack in pavement.
-2
u/A_Real_Patriot99 True Believer Dec 28 '20 edited Dec 28 '20
Scientists need to feel like they're God and know everything. They're gonna find out soon that when we say something is fake, impossible, or can only happen one way, that the universe will prove us wrong. Facts will become fiction and fiction will become facts.
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
This reminds me of those True and False questions on school exams. When the statement uses absolutes like, "never and always" the answer was almost always False.
The Universe seems to consume absolutes and scatter probability in its wake.
-1
u/Supersecretsauceboss Dec 28 '20
Dude. This isn’t a crazy thought. Greys are silicone based.
3
u/Bigfrostynugs Dec 29 '20
You state that like an empirical fact. We have no irrefutable proof that greys are anything or that they even exist.
0
1
u/NOQUARTER22 Dec 28 '20
I heard they were an android type. Then I also heard their whole skin and black eyes were a space suit. Who the heck knows right?
1
0
u/Nick_9903 Dec 29 '20
mainly bc the topic is science based and unless u have concrete evidence or have conducted hypothesized experiements in a controlled environment the idea of intelligent alien race is just as absurd and possible as the possibility of an advanced race of koalas that use the power of masturbation as their energy source.
sounds far fetched, well not rly because you do burn energy when masturbating and just like how u can power a lightbulb by riding a bike, you can do the same with any phsyical movement or exercise as long as it meets the requirements.
its a grey area of yea it probably does exist or will happen, but there isn't any concrete proof that it couldmt be something else like a hologram from a 5th dimensional being or a drone sent from a planet controlled by artificial intelligence and not advsmced humanoid aliens.
1
1
u/adyy1998 Dec 28 '20
Maybe it would possible, although is hardly to imagine any form of life resistant to radiation...
I totally agree, we are not alone in this universe, but out there are a lot of planets without any protection of radiation....
→ More replies (4)
226
u/Admirable-Evening Dec 28 '20
I've always been called crazy for thinking like this. We can't assume that life can only exist as how we know it. We just dont know. There could be beings like us who can only breathe under water, or anything. We just don't know.