The Universe is Probably Teaming with Life. (Hubble Reveals Deepest View Ever Of Night Sky)

reply to post by PhoenixOD


That is right! At last!

We simply do not know what started DNA off. What we do know, is the Earth is just like many other planets, that have been exposed to the same cosmological and environmental circumstances, so whatever did start the chemical chain reaction on Earth, has also happened elsewhere, on another planet. The Earth has not had any special events, that separate it from other similar planets.

There is nothing to suggest there was ever a special catalyst, that you seem to be fond of holding up as your cause of 'special DNA'. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest, that the formation of animate organic compounds are a rarity in the vastness of the universe.

It is you whom is having trouble to grasp that simple concept (though your attempt to goad me into a response has been admirable). The Earth is not special, nor has it ever been special. Period.

I can't wait for NASA's new scope. It will put Hubble to shame. I was lucky enough to see some of the models of this bad boy at the Goddard facility.

www.jwst.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

That is right! At last!

We simply do not know what started DNA off. What we do know, is the Earth is just like many other planets, that have been exposed to the same cosmological and environmental circumstances.

There is nothing to suggest there was ever a special catalyst, that you seem to be fond of holding up as your cause of 'special DNA'. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest, that the formation of animate organic compounds are a rarity in the vastness of the universe.

It is you whom is having trouble to grasp that simple concept (though your attempt to goad me into a response has been admirable). The Earth is not special, nor has it ever been special. Period.

Feel free to provide evidence that the creation of DNA is not special by providing other examples of it happening.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


And likewise, feel free to provide evidence that is special.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


The fact we only have one example of it is evidence alone..

reply to post by PhoenixOD


What are you talking about?

Please tell me how much of the universe we can actually research at the moment?......0.00000000000000001% and that is being generous, we haven't even researched our own solar system enough to completely dismiss life not existing outside of Earth, the Mars rover curiosity is currently searching for evidence of past life's that may of existed on Mars

You ask silly questions in regard of what we know, the questions that need to be asked are about what we don't know....but you need to think outside of the box though which in your case I doubt is possible

And please don't be offended by my posting as you seem to do every time previously, show me you can think a bigger picture than what we already know about life existing and I'll stop pointing out the obvious "outside the box" thinking that is needed to contemplate other life forms other than our very own DNA makeup

The universe is vast and your thinking is not

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

The fact we only have one example of it is evidence alone..

And science takes one example as an absolute does it? Funny, I have never heard of that. I always thought that science was based upon something being reproducible, in a controlled experiment.


I have given you evidence, that the environment that DNA flourishes in, is not uncommon, and all the factors that served as a catalyst for the formation of DNA to be enabled, have not been an isolated incidence, and that no matter what you say, those same factors have been in play at some other point in the universe (the maths say it has).


We, as a species, cannot make absolutes from things we do not fully understand (what you are asking me to do). We can however look at what we do understand, and look at how the things we don't understand, behave inside of what we do understand. We can then make good educated opinion on the observations, and form a theory around it. When that has been done, we can start the exploration of that theory, and see if it holds water or not.


This is how science works. Not asking for absolutes, where no absolutes are to be found, otherwise we would be stuck at square one forever.

Originally posted by zayonara
I can't wait for NASA's new scope. It will put Hubble to shame. I was lucky enough to see some of the models of this bad boy at the Goddard facility.

www.jwst.nasa.gov...

Not too long to wait! Can't wait either! It will be amazing to see even further into the universe, though I think the findings will be even more mind boggling.

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

That is the first I have ever heard of the universe being infinite and matter being finite. One is not conducive to the other. It is an impossibility, that if the universe is made of matter and antimatter, that anything that makes it what it is, is finite.

The universe is also made of space, the absence of matter.

However, I've never heard of any consensus on whether the universe is finite or infinite. The only thing we know for sure is that it is getting bigger.

While you might think that the fact that the universe is growing means its size at any given time is finite, that is not the case. There are at least four different classes of infinities (maybe more - I might be misremembering.) They are called "Cardinal Infinities" and each is infinitely larger than the previous one.

If the universe actually started with the big bang, then we might assume that matter is finite. But the universe itself could well extend into several dimensions (beyond the four we usually deal with in Cosmology) in which case the space itself could be infinite already, and expanding.

Earlier a poster stated that the "space the universe is expanding into" is infinite. The universe is not expanding "into" any space. It is the space itself that is doing the expanding. And not into some other, empty space somewhere.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Good post.

You can check out the work of George Smoot and John Mather, RE the universe being infinite.


As for space being empty, that is a whole other subject that I am not going to get into now. I will however say that a law in Quantum Mechanics, says that a particle can be created from the fabric of space by 2 photons. If space is infinite, so is the fabric of space, if matter can be formed by 2 photons from the fabric of space, then matter is also infinite, as photons have no boundary. You can check this out in 2 photon physics.

Basically it's the same logic as what we refer to impossible. Whenever something has a chance of 10^-6 to happen we just call impossible as its happening is almost never likely to occur. In this way the universe likely has an end but is so vast that one can safely call it infinite.

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
reply to post by Harte

 

Good post.

You can check out the work of George Smoot and John Mather, RE the universe being infinite.


As for space being empty, that is a whole other subject that I am not going to get into now. I will however say that a law in Quantum Mechanics, says that a particle can be created from the fabric of space by 2 photons. If space is infinite, so is the fabric of space, if matter can be formed by 2 photons from the fabric of space, then matter is also infinite, as photons have no boundary. You can check this out in 2 photon physics.

I already knew this.

However, what is created is a matter-antimatter pair.

That wouldn't necessarily result in matter ultimately being created, as annihilation results in the return of the photons.

Harte

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


Actually, there is something very special about the Earth - the Moon.Early in Earth's history, an object about the size of Mars impacted the proto-Earth and Moon coalesced out of the debris lofted into orbit. [see www.psrd.hawaii.edu... - theories on Earth-Moon formation]

The Moon is exceptionally large, being 1/4 the diameter of the Earth and 1/81 of it's mass. It is an essential part of the development of life on Earth. The Moon, for example, stabilizes the axial tilt of the Earth - among other things. [see topdocumentaryfilms.com... - documentary on the important of the Moon].

The formation of the Earth, and life upon it, is the result of numerous chance factors and events.Indeed, if we rewound the history of the Earth and replayed it, we may not be here.

There is nothing special about DNA. All the chemicals needed to create it are abundant in our solar system and no doubt throughout the universe. But that doesn't mean life is rife through the universe. DNA is one step, one step in a LONG LONG line of evolution which requires favourable circumstances for which to progress....or the ability to evolve and adapt, which isn't always possible, more species die daily due to the inability to adapt, than there are new species than learn to cope and progress.
As much as many won't agree, the Earth is special, if you want to use that word, in a sense that it has just enough gravity to allow things to come together and stick to the surface (i.e. we can walk, but we can also counter gravity and leap with little issue) But also not to little so as to make it hard for things to come together And that's just one piece of the equation...
The conditions on earth are favourable for the bonding of chemicals/biological organisms, it's abundance of water, clear enough atmosphere to allow the suns light to penetrate but not so much that it would boil away the water and strip the atmosphere. It's magnetic fields which protect us daily....the list goes on.
This isn't the story for all planets in our solar system and is surely the same throughout the universe.
Some planets in our galaxy alone may well have had the starts of life forming, then a big ass comet could have come and wiped it out. The variables are to many to make any real assumptions and even things like the Drake Equation are merely part of a guessing game. The truth is, we WONT know if life exists anywhere else until WE find it and even then, it will more than likely be something less spectacular than most on this board would happy about.

reply to post by Harte


If you know this, then you also know that the anti matter and matter particles don't always meet, thus no annihilation. My point still stands.

reply to post by blackeneth


And a formation of a moon is special because of what reason? Are you claiming that a moon with a similar ratio to a planet, as our moon has with Earth, is not possible?

Originally posted by StarblazerUK
more species die daily due to the inability to adapt, than there are new species than learn to cope and progress.

I agree with some of your points.

I am however interested in where you got the quoted information from? Could you provide some sources for that?

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
reply to post by Harte

 

If you know this, then you also know that the anti matter and matter particles don't always meet, thus no annihilation. My point still stands.

They sometimes don't meet in a sterile mind experiment like Two Photon physics.

In reality, not so much.

However, Hawking radiation, which is still entirely theoretical, is an example of this. Except it requires a nearby event horizon, within which the antiparticle annihilates with a different particle than the one it was paired with when it came into being.

EDIT: On the other hand, in regards to space being "empty," it doesn't even require photons for matter-antimater creation. The Heisenberg Principle is enough for this to occur spontaneously.

When discussing empty space, these sorts of exceptions are not what I had in mind. Space, after all, is different from matter. On the larger scale, space is empty when it's not being occupied by masses of matter.

My point was that there is a definition of the term "space" that differs from "universe," and that the universe is not expanding into empty space. It is growing because the space itself is growing.

No need to sidetrack into these quantum technicalities, however true they are, for that argument.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Very true. But, is "not so much", never? If it isn't, my original point still stands.

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
reply to post by Harte

 

Very true. But, is "not so much", never? If it isn't, my original point still stands.

And your point was?

I mean, with respect to my comments about space being the empty parts between masses?

Harte