UFOs & Extraterrestrial Life

nomadski wrote:So it does look like no life on Mars. And Mars is so like Earth.

Lol far from it. Walter Sullivan noted that Viking's failure to find life on Mars was disappointing but not unexpected. With only a tenth of Earth's mass and a third of its surface gravity, Mars was unable to retain a substantial atmosphere "and its fate has little bearing on that of more Earthlike planets throughout the Universe."

As you said we need a giant planet like Jupiter to absorb the impacts. And some say we need a moon for tidal Oceans for life.

I don't think life needed either. Or, both can be liabilities as well as assets. Jovian planets may absorb oort junk but their gravity may be pulling it into the inner solar system in the first place. As for a moon for tides, if life originated in clay as Cairns Smith thought, ocean tides were irrelevant. Stable planetary obliquity, due to the gravity of a moon, is also thought vital but I don't think obliquity shifts would make a planet uninhabitable.

An almost identical solar system to our own.

I do believe planetary conditions must be quite earthlike but that might be possible in a much different planetary system. For example, a gas giant might exist close to a relatively dim star,, with an earthlike moon orbiting it. Ordinarily a planet close enough to a dim star to get adaquate energy would be tidally locked but potentially this is a way to get around that difficulty.

And we should not look at all with radio....

Agreed, given the likely brevity of that technological stage, on a cosmic timescale, SETI is probably a waste of time.

Was there one plan for life or many. If many then they could not be all identical. And therefore some had to be better and some worse. But there is no point in having worse plans. So there had to be one plan. The best plan. Or a plan needing a specific set of conditions to give the best results. Since no approximate plan can give the one and only best result. Therefore the condition for life on Earth are perfect and fine tuned. Needing exact parameters. Therefore no life on other solar system planets. Therfore a need for a rotating wobbling Earth of this size and distance from sun. Therefore other Earths out there with identical life.

The moons of jupiter are either crushed by heavy gravity and heavily radiated by jupiter and full of impact craters. Any debris pulled in, likely to collide with moon of jupiter and turn it into saturn rings. Best place for Earth is here away from the danger.

The idea of making artificial biological life in a test tube, gave poor results. They put some muddy water in a glass container and heated it and zapped it with electricity in carbon dioxide atmosphere. They got amino acids. But no bugs. Therefore this backs up my argument that making life needs multiple very precise variables. And we do not know them. All we now is the general starting conditions. The solar system.

About radio. That is all we have now. And I think the cost is relatively low. And is worth perusing. But as you said and I agree that technology moves on. If atoms communicate instantly across infinite space by quantum. Then why not a quantum radio telescope? The Chinese invented a quantum radar recently.

https://youtu.be/9VYgI79nFtw

nomadski wrote:Therefore no life on other solar system planets.

No advanced life. Microorganisms are possible.

a need for a rotating wobbling Earth of this size and distance from sun.

From what I've read, a planet can be earthlike with anything from .4 to 1.2 Earth masses so a habitable planet needn't be an exact duplicate of ours.

The moons of jupiter are either crushed by heavy gravity and heavily radiated by jupiter

Plenty of jovian moons stay intact, and a bigger earthlike one would probably have a magnetic field protecting it from radiation. Or it may orbit inside a jovian field.

and full of impact craters. Any debris pulled in, likely to collide with moon of jupiter and turn it into saturn rings.

All planets experienced heavy bombardment and many jovian moons remain intact.

idea of making artificial biological life in a test tube, gave poor results. They put some muddy water in a glass container and heated it and zapped it with electricity in carbon dioxide atmosphere. They got amino acids. But no bugs.

But life may have arisen in clay not water.

DNA research points earliest universal ancestor to belong to as early as 4.5 billion years ago. Living in deep thermal vents in Ocean. Needing heat and hydrogen and carbon dioxide and Iron to form primitive cell. So no sunlight needed here. Or so it seems. Here we can not divorce the micro from the macro world. A thermal vent needs a molten core. We need an Ocean. And probably stable conditions for a few million years for life. And all the other variables of right size planet. Without macro conditions being very specific,  then micro conditions can not be specific, then deep thermal vents in Ocean not possible. The question is, in planetary evolution, if there is to be an Earth. With a similar sun. Then where does everything else has to be? If specific conditions are needed for life on micro level. Then are specific conditions imposed on macro level?

This question can be answered by modelling. If you have a star like our sun. And a debris field like our solar system and an Earth forms, then does this force similar planetary formation?

If the answer is yes. Then there is a plan for life. And you may say, bacteria can form on  very dissimilar worlds. Without sunlight. On Europa. In similar ways. Micro conditions being disconnected or loosely connected to macro world. But I believe God does not plant seeds in the desert. And we will not find any bacteria on other worlds in solar system. As we have not so far on Mars.


https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/nearby-solar-system-much-like-ours

nomadski wrote:DNA research points earliest universal ancestor to belong to as early as 4.5 billion years ago.

At the time and until around 4 billion years ago, the Earth was still accreting, undergoing massive bombardment. The whole planet was hot and there probably weren't yet any oceans.

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms

Yes you may be right. But wiki says life could be about 4.4 billion years old. While surface still hot with magma in places. Like cooking on gas mark 5. But what is a couple of hundred million years, between friends!  Makes me think that if evolution of human life is a necessity condition  of universe, that need precise conditions. Then those aliens may have identical DNA to humans. Kind of answers why they are trying to breed with human abductees to invade Earth later. All this may be real !

@ Tsavo lion

Thanks for link. So it looks like this phenomenon is truly worldwide. Not just in yank.

Unless a planet is tightly bound to one star--and ecosphere planets tend to be--probably adversely.

Well the arrangement in our solar system is simply not stable... you can't have stability if there is more than one planet, and with every extra planetary mass you add the more chaotic it will become.

Recent close up looks at Mercury suggest it formed out by Mars... 85% of the planet by mass is core... so the outer surface has been removed by violence.

The point I am making is that Mercury has moved... Pluto almost certainly moved and its orbit is weird to say the least... part of its orbit it is closer to the sun than Uranus is... and the earth has clearly had a serious impact to create our moon so at least one other Mars sized object was around here somewhere at some time... we really have no idea how planet form and where they would form and where they would not.

You can say gas giants only form out in the colder areas of the system... but billions of years ago the sun was not as hot as it is now and it is only getting hotter... that is just the way its evolution will work...

Here a simulation predicts stable orbits for solar system objects.

https://youtu.be/yXq1i3HlumA

Well that was interesting... but the obvious question is why would the dirt or dust cloud start out flat... this is material presumably left over from an exploding star... otherwise there would be only hydrogen and a little bit of Helium involved... how did it form into a flat disk.

The animation was interesting but not very clear and didn't really make clear what shifts in orbit they were talking about apart from shifts from the horizontal plane which they haven't explained properly to begin with anyway.

Most of the star nebulas we see in the night sky are not flat disks... they are areas of cloud and dust that are like clouds in earths atmosphere...

I appreciate we end up with a disk shape at the end but isn't that largely due to the sun forming and spinning and exerting its gravity on other objects held in is gravity field.

During the process shown we see Jupiter and likely other masses throwing objects out of the system... with a 3D lump shaped cloud would it not do the same... pull some matter and and sling shot other material too... eventually leaving a disk?

They are clearly creating computer models and we assume they took what they saw now and ran it in reverse... but does that mean a flat disk is the only possible start? Because to me that does not make sense with what we see in the rest of the universe... the only flat disks we see out there are galaxies... most of the cloud nebulas where stars form are lumpy bumpy cloud patches that are not flat disks of material... yet.

If you look at this simulation however, you can see how all the planets wobble and change... because they circle the sun but they also influence and effect each other.

Our moon is getting further and further away... which is also counter intuitive... because dust and particles hit the earth from space every day... hundreds or thousands of tons heavier every day, and we can presume material is also landing on the moon so both are increasing in mass by a tiny amount every day... shouldn't that make them move closer and closer together?

What? Why would the Sun's gravity field order the planets into a single plane?

Well where is the rest of the stuff?

If it was just a blob of material then we have no reason to assume it was disk shaped or even that the material formed the star in the exact centre for that matter.

If you have a 3D non symmetrical blob of material how does it form into a disk?

Can it form into a disk?

And where does the angular component come from that causes the spin of not just the objects travelling around the sun, but also the objects themselves like Earth spinning and the moon spinning to keep one of its faces always pointed at the earth as it travels around the earth... and all the moons around other planets... and for that matter why are all asteroids tumbling.


Obviously any object in orbit around the sun not moving relative to the sun would fall into the sun via mutual gravity effects, but what accelerated the material in the dust cloud to form the disk we see now?

Things not moving around the disk would be subject to the increasing gravity of the largest object in the centre to become the sun and would fall into the centre too adding mass... presumably the lighter elements moved easiest and fastest though being an airless vacuum all material should have fallen at the same rate so the sun should be as much of a mix of different particle types as any other body.... when the sun at the centre of the cloud ignited it should have blown all the excess light material away... leaving heavier material to form planets... with only the larger planets able to hold on to their enormous atmospheres of gas because of their size and distant position from the sun making them cold and with low energy slow gas atmospheres... presumably the close proximity of Mercury to the sun would mean its atmosphere probably just boiled away... especially if it was created further away and has moved to its current position...

GarryB wrote:
Recent close up looks at Mercury suggest it formed out by Mars... 85% of the planet by mass is core... so the outer surface has been removed by violence.

Mars, not Venus? If Mercury formed in the inner solar system a large, iron rich center would be natural, as heavier elements tend to become more concentrated close to the center of gravity (in this case sol).

nomadski wrote: Kind of answers why they are trying to breed with human abductees to invade Earth later.

Lol I doubt the "breeding" program is real. The phenomenon is very deceptive.

So it looks like this phenomenon is truly worldwide. Not just in yank.

I knew UFOs were a global phenomenon since I read my first book on the subject.

Video: https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/mesa/mysterious-lights-hovering-over-mesa-skies-puzzles-residents

Interesting but hardly as spectacular as the Phoenix lights, in the same part of the country in '97.

There are different ways of detecting alien life. I think all that are practical methods should be followed.  As KVS said, physics can tell us how planets form in a disc. And as GarryB said, this prediction is not entirely accurate. This is a theoretical method. I was thinking that if solar systems form out of Nebula. Then is it possible to predict the type of solar system by initial conditions? Or is it possible to predict shape of solar systems by knowing some other observed characteristics? Such as size of star and size and orbit of one planet. The other qualities being derived from theory. This will give us close matches to earth like solar systems. Tells us where to look. Each observed solar system then adding to accuracy of theoretical model. They now have thousands of examples.


The other method is by direct observation. Here is a new proposed method. Interesting....

https://youtu.be/Hjaj-Ig9jBs

As far as UFO phenomenon being deceptive. I agree. But this makes it more worthy of serious study. I remember a TV show that linked F117 design to area 51 and aliens. The aim was to confuse the real source of theory being a Russian scientist paper about stealth. I also remember thinking how science advances. And what this has to do with the lifestyle of scientists. The main route and cause of  science. I remember Newton studied the occult. These days he would be put in mental hospital for that. But it shows the fluidity and flexibility of thinking. Maybe from the occult he learnt how not to think and derived the law of gravity.

https://youtu.be/Xkvmnp8ca6Y

Here a simple explanation of ancient stone structures. Built by simple hand tools. Apart from mechanical jack. Unfortunately no aliens here with stone melting and levitating technology.

One question from any physicist. With this solar lensing, the telescope will be put behind the sun. And according to quantum theory, it will receive waves of light. I remember reading that a scientist had said that if observation point was not behind a star or planet, that quantum effect will mean particles of light will be observed instead. Is there a way of using this property to have multiple telescopes that are connected. And resolution of telescope increased?

nomadski wrote: Then is it possible to predict the type of solar system by initial conditions?

For one thing, Population II systems aren't likely to have sizeable terrestrial planets.

Or is it possible to predict shape of solar systems by knowing some other observed characteristics? Such as size of star and size and orbit of one planet.

There are examples of smaller, dimmer stars with planets orbiting much closer to them than planets in our solar system orbit sol.

Here a simple explanation of ancient stone structures. Built by simple hand tools. Apart from mechanical jack. Unfortunately no aliens here with stone melting and levitating technology.

Right.

If I understand you right, then you say there is too much variation in some cases . How is this possible? The initial gas cloud even if lumpy and with different density and temp. When starting to collect together, should become homogeneous. And the only determinant then is the mass of the gas cloud. But classification of these systems should help, as you said in class II stars. Here is more talk from SETI.  Glad to see more serious science behind project.


https://youtu.be/nk_R55O24t4

There will be more variations in 2-3 star systems. Some planets even have orbits around 2 stars: Kepler-1647 is 3,700 light-years away and approximately 4.4 billion years old, roughly the same age as Earth. The stars are similar to the sun, with one slightly larger than our home star and the other slightly smaller. The planet has a mass and radius nearly identical to that of Jupiter, making it the largest transiting circumbinary planet ever found. .. Interestingly, its orbit puts the planet with in the so-called habitable zone–the range of distances from a star where liquid water might pool on the surface of an orbiting planet. Like Jupiter, however, Kepler-1647b is a gas giant, making the planet unlikely to host life. Yet if the planet has large moons, they could potentially be suitable for life.
“Habitability aside, Kepler-1647b is important because it is the tip of the iceberg of a theoretically predicted population of large, long-period circumbinary planets,” said Welsh. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/new-planet-is-largest-discovered-that-orbits-two-suns

The other obvious problem is that as the star evolves... as the planets in the system move around, as objects hit the surface... the habitability can change radically over time.

You could describe Earth as ideal for life, and other places in this solar system having potential for some primitive life... basically life is just a mix of chemicals given time to develop... when things are random then it can take 4.5 billion years to get humans... and of course if things didn't go right we would not be here to notice... but things perhaps could have also gone much much faster just through simple blind luck.

I mean when you are designing a better mouse trap you don't keep building the same one over and over with development and design basically consisting of making the new product based on the last one made so effectively evolution is based on copy reproduction where minor production mistakes leading to changing the basic design over time leads to evolution of the product... no intellect is required... just enormous mass production and billions of years...

If you have a character involved... call them god or call them an alien or greater power... it should be much much faster and much more efficient... you can pretty much work out after the first few dozen produced samples what is wrong and what sort of changes need to be made to fix it...

Of course we have developed to the point where we are starting to find errors in our own design and are on the brink of being perhaps able to fix that... most people are less than 10 years old... the material you are made of was not you 10 years ago... the eyes you think are yours since birth have been refabricated by your body piece by piece. As you age the replacement parts being made are a bit more sloppy... your skin becomes less flexible, your hair thinner and more brittle and gray... or you lose it all together... it does this by necessity because we are all Apple products... if we kept working for every we would be stuck with the first models and we would never have space for the new improved latest models. These models take enormous numbers of years to develop so shortish lifespans means we don't have so many old models around the place eating food or owning property.

Once we master our own genetic code we can turn off both aging and reproduction... because if we don't there will be trouble.

Perhaps we could turn reproduction back on if we develop travel methods that allow us to travel the universe.

Of course we will all be effectively young people who will never age and no matter what you do she wont get pregnant so maybe there will be a period where technology does not advance very much for a dark age perhaps....

when things are random then it can take 4.5 billion years to get humans...

or humanoids, not necessarily mammalian.
As mentioned, if dinosaurs weren't wiped out, some could evolve into 2 legged, 2 handed humanoids:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_intelligence#Sapient_dinosaurs

GarryB wrote:
The other obvious problem is that as the star evolves... as the planets in the system move around, as objects hit the surface... the habitability can change radically over time.

After the initial planetary game of billiards things may settle down and stay fairly stable.

Once we master our own genetic code we can turn off both aging and reproduction... because if we don't there will be trouble.

There's more than enough trouble already (overpopulation) despite aging and death. Under democracy turing off aging is possible but not reproduction....

Tsavo Lion wrote:
or humanoids, not necessarily mammalian.
As mentioned, if dinosaurs weren't wiped out, some could evolve into 2 legged, 2 handed humanoids:

Greg Paul was skeptical of Russell's view. But who knows, given time even octopi might have radiated into a niche similar to ours, perhaps in some larger version of Earth with more water.

@ GarryB

I know what you are saying. If our sun changes radiation output, then Earth fries and Mars becomes habitable. Perhaps. Even if this is right, it does not indicate that the plan for life does not exist. It may simply mean that more areas in solar system given opportunity for life. Kind of like the sun's rays washing over a rotating Earth. Giving life to maximum area.

About collisions making a plan unlikely. If collisions are not frequent, then they may be a force for greater number of species existing. Some 99% of species became extinct. Most for other reasons than meteor strike. Yet many species survived. If today all life was destroyed on Earth. Still new life will spring up. In few million years. Because conditions are perfect.

A created universe by supreme being means that it is perfect. An evolving universe has greater perfection than a static universe. All around we see order. Even without a creator, it can not be denied. Nothing is random. Even randomness itself. The number PI, is so vast, that by sheer size of it, it contains the works of Shakespeare. If numbers given alphabetic values!

Exactly you don't need God for evolution. And that indicates a very clever designer. The one that builds a self learning machine. We are doing now with AI. It is better that you build a machine that learns and fixes itself. You have the power..

@ Tsavo Lion

Cat, Dog, Snake is not who they are. It is what they do. Human is what we do. It is our job.  All life on Earth has common ancestor. We share DNA with bacteria. On Earth, all recent human species were the ones using tools. If our exact species had not taken over. Then Neanderthals or some other would have.

https://youtu.be/uXoh6vi6J5U

About great diversity of solar systems. This does not mean random effect. These systems still obey physical laws. But these laws allow for great diversity. In planet formation. But still this video shows different types of systems. You can see it. I think it possible to be able to predict. Also more powerful telescopes now being planned.

https://youtu.be/Td_YeAdygJE

Yet another.

https://youtu.be/gnZVvYm6KKM