Aliens

---

ah you got me there hon..............:) LOL and Steve.............. >>>>>complex molecules required by life as we understand it. i didn't post the question as a start of an argument JUST for the record.............it wasn't a question actually just the meanerings of my weary mind..........however, as we understand it, is kinda limited don't ya think.........

however, as we understand it, is kinda limited don't ya thinkNo. There's not a shred of evidence for the existence of biological life based on anything but carbon. Everything points toward it not being possible, and certainly not for anything beyond a most trivial form of life.Read the NASA Astrobiology Institute essay.

Everything points toward it not being possibleAS we all have said.."That we know of"There are still "creatures" on our own planet that we have not discovered. There were/are species in the rainforest that go extinct or going extinct everyday before we get a chance to discover them. Same with the fast depths of the oceans that we cannot reach. Who knows what mysteries that lay there undiscovered. It's all very fascinating to think and ponder.

there's a fair bit of decent, scientific hypothosis on non-carbon life by people like Segan, etc.It proves nothing of course other than there are some intillectual heavy-weights behind the concepts

I read some of Sagan's books, but I don't recall what his speculations were on silicon-based life.But the idea of non-carbon-based life borders on magical thinking. There is absolutely not a shred of evidence that it's possible (at least, for anything non-trivial), and there are a lot of reasons that it is not.

I'm going to have to go back and look it up I'm afraid. I think it was in his postulations on life on Venus. Hopefully, I havn't confused him with another theorytician

Complex life requires complex molecules, and hence, carbon. Carbon is our friend.

Wouldn't it be possible that in another galaxy far, far away, there could be some element like carbon, except it isn't carbon. Wouldn't it be possible that there could be tons of new molecules and what not out there that other beings could be made of?

No, unless you're talking about a different universe, rather than a different galaxy.We can observe the far reaches of the universe with optical, x-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, radio, etc. telescopes, and everything that's been observed points to matter being the same everywhere in the universe. We can see what stars that are great distances away are made of.What's wrong with carbon? It's all over the universe.

It was universe, my bad. I'm not required to think right now: it's Christmas break.You never know, though. Maybe there is something with a better structure than carbon that is capable of supporting/giving life.

Apparently not in this universe. But there's not much you can really say about other universes.

I havnt ever really been a big believer in aliens as such. I put it more down to government test vehicles that are sited in the air and assumed to be space ships, or other stuff. I have heared of people seeing alian like things which I have nevr figured out what they were. My friend had a friend who was really freaked out about this alien like little thing he hit with his car. Completely white and about the size of a chicken and naked and when he hit it it ran off when he got out to see what it was, smashed the grill on his car too. He said he saw it again in the same kinda area it was in the middle of the road and ran on 2 legs into a field. I decided to look it up on the interent and there were a few people who had seen similar things :/, really creapy stuff. I dont believe it is an alien but who knows. The guy who saw it isnt the kinda guy to lie about it either, pretty serious kinda guy never knew him to make anything up.

What's wrong with carbon? It's all over the universe. nothing, never said there was.

I mean, if the conditions for life are possible, than carbon-based life is what you'll get, if you want anything beyond something very, very simple. It's not even known if anything resembling life can be based on anything other than carbon.

Silicon would seem to be the closest fit to carbon, but it generally doesn't form nearly as stable of compounds as carbon therefore making it far less suitable for life.The question is how do we define life? What are basic requirements to consider something living? Does it need to have some abstract self-sustaining purpose, or does it need to consist of at least the basic amino acids that we believe constitute the basis of all more complicated life? Maybe a planet could be considered alive since it's a body with different systems and process within, all relying on a fine balance to create relatively unchanging conditions. Perhaps a computer chip could be considered life since it's capable of taking stimulus (electrical signals) and reacting through a series of on/off switches to produce an understandable code or pattern.Generally, life is only assumed to be carbon based. What do you consider to be the definition for life, or are you as unsure as I am?

> What do you consider to be the definition for life

That's kind of a philosophical question. Is a virus alive? Is a flame alive?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines life as: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

I'm not sure that that's satisfactory definition, but it's a good start. Maybe biologists have a better one.

As we understand it was a relivant comment steve..............are you saying we as humans understand EVERYTHING?didnt humans once think the earth was flat? yes cos at that time WE didn't understand..................shrugs

We understand a lot more than we used to about the nature of matter and its physical properties. We understand that the laws of physics are uniform in the universe (at least, in the one that we inhabit). We understand a lot more about molecular biology than we used to. The domain of "magic" shrinks ever more rapidly as our understanding of the physical world increases.If you want to speculate about types of matter unlike what we know, that's fine, as long as you realize that it's not based on anything...real. It's all in one's imagination. You can speculate about anything at all, but it's nothing more than entertainment. In other words, it's science fiction.

**totally agree there, but we don't understand EVERYTHING...............and in 100 years we may understand something that we don't understand now.

and do you mention the word magic in posts to me as a dig by the way???? cos it comes across that way!

**

and in 100 years we may understand something that we don't understand now.I agree. And while we don't know, all we can say is that we don't know. It's fun to speculate, but it's just for entertainment. The issue is when someone hears something that sounds romantic and cool, and believe it as truth, because it sounds romantic and cool.Debating alien visitors is pretty much the same thing as debating the existence of God.> and do you mention the word magic in posts to me as a dig by the way????No. I used the words "magic" and "magical thinking" in this context before I ever heard of you. Magical thinking is what makes so many Americans think that the creation myth is true, and evolution is not.> cos it comes across that way!It's not meant to, so it shouldn't. Seriously, I do not sit around thinking of cool ways to insult you, although a lot of what I write seems to be interpreted that way by you.