Wow! NASA finds "Alien" life

[mixedgas]

Quote:

One I am currently considering is the theory there is no such thing as "nothing", which if true is quite significant.

End quote.

Give your self a gold star in the copy book, that one is pretty much proven.
Unless you can freeze the universe to absolute zero, there is some form of energy traveling in what we humans call nothing.

Steve

[ckilgore1]

Quote:

One I am currently considering is the theory there is no such thing as "nothing", which if true is quite significant.

End quote.

Give your self a gold star in the copy book, that one is pretty much proven.
Unless you can freeze the universe to absolute zero, there is some form of energy traveling in what we humans call nothing.

Steve

I was not aware the concept of "no such thing as nothing" had been pretty much proven. I freely admit I have very limited understanding of such things, but my problem has to do with pondering "what is beyond?". I have always thought the generic definition of the universe was "everything" and was a little disturbed when scientists began speculating on multiple universes. How can there be multiple everythings? Correct terminology matters especially when novices are attempting to understand. Isn't it important there be a word for "the everything"? We had one in "universe" and didn't really need to mess with it when we began to learn (and/or speculate) that it was more than we realized.

You say the existence of "nothing" was pretty much disproven when we found energy moving about in what we thought was "nothing". This sounds perfectly logical to my mind. But my mind simply wants to then encompass that "nothing" into the "everything". What about beyond that? Expanding universe ("the everything") implies leading edges. What is it expanding into? What is this called, and what does it "look like" or "feel like"?

On the surface all this may seem like foolish speculation, and maybe it is. But the universe or whatever we choose to call "the everything" is either finite or infinite. The huge significance lies in the fact that either one of these conditions is nearly inconceivable . . . at least in my mind. If someone could make any of this easier to grasp, please point me in such direction.

Chuck

[Xytrell]

maybe life elsewhere requires NO sun and NO water to sustain life.

Plenty of lifeforms can live without sun (or any derivatives of it), but you'd have difficulty finding a planet that doesn't orbit a sun. In fact, I think that's part of the definition of "planet."

Life pretty much by definition requires many chemical reactions. Many chemical reactions require a polar solvent. The four most common elements in the known universe are hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon. Water is the third most common molecule in the universe after hydrogen and carbon monoxide, AND it is a polar solvent. It only makes sense to look for water.

[ckilgore1]

Plenty of lifeforms can live without sun (or any derivatives of it), but you'd have difficulty finding a planet that doesn't orbit a sun. In fact, I think that's part of the definition of "planet."

Life pretty much by definition requires many chemical reactions. Many chemical reactions require a polar solvent. The four most common elements in the known universe are hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon. Water is the third most common molecule in the universe after hydrogen and carbon monoxide, AND it is a polar solvent. It only makes sense to look for water.

This likely will be received as an idiotic statement, and it may well be. As much as my limited understanding will allow, many things science "knows" have some built in assumptions. Time continues to prove many things we know are incorrect. It does seem that over time these incorrect pieces of knowledge become somewhat less outrageous, but then again, the universe sure is a big place. And if our "place" in it is anything more than infintesimally insignificant, then we are indeed truly remarkable (seems unlikely). I know science can only truly work and explore with tools and knowledge at hand. However, when speculating isn't it a little too bold to assume life can only exist on planets, or for that matter that it can only exist on something physical at all. Our definition of life may well be even more confining than we have acknowleged. Somehow to my mind, awareness in some form, seems to be the only definition of life which makes sense.

[colouredmirrorball]

After all, the Earth was flat for sure 1000 years ago. Just saying.

You can only make assumptions. Unless there is a lot of luck involved, we won't be able to prove anything.

Edit: oh look I have 445 posts!

[Xytrell]

very constructive to start out your post with "you're an idiot" . Why, because I think we should use what knowledge we have? Would you suggest we throw all that away and look in the middle of stars first since there COULD be life there?

Maybe I should have said it would be very difficult to locate a tangible place for life (rock, comet, planet, whatever) that doesn't orbit a star. But maybe I'm an idiot for thinking that life would probably use some of the vast quantities of free energy from a star.

[ckilgore1]

very constructive to start out your post with "you're an idiot" . Why, because I think we should use what knowledge we have? Would you suggest we throw all that away and look in the middle of stars first since there COULD be life there?

Maybe I should have said it would be very difficult to locate a tangible place for life (rock, comet, planet, whatever) that doesn't orbit a star. But maybe I'm an idiot for thinking that life would probably use some of the vast quantities of free energy from a star.

Please read my comment again. You have misinterpreted what I said. I was simply saying that what I was about to say may be received as an idiotic statement. Also, I do fully recognize we logically have to use the knowledge at hand, and that totally random research would not likely be productive. But that does not mean we have to limit ourselves by being too restrictive in defining what may constitute life.

In reconsidering, I should have begun my comment with, "What I'm about to say may be received as an idiotic statement . . .". That truly is what I meant to be conveying. Science in many forms is merely a hobby of mine. While I have done extensive reading and "self study" over my many years, I fully recognize I am simply an amatuer. I know that most of you have extensive science backgrounds, and I would never call you or anyone else an idiot.

Chuck

[platinum]

Ghosts.
Ghost can move from here and suddenly appear there(This is mentioned for purpose only) they can also be photographed in the infrared spectrum and they appear to have no mass(Before arguing, Einstien also believed in them)I have also seen them(therefore I dont just believe I also know)

May I see one of these "photographs"? I've been to a few places that seemed "haunted" and even a hotel in Seattle once where strange things were happening throughout the night that seemed to indicate *something*, but I still have nothing tangible to go off of that would make it possible for me to say I "know" they exist yet.

Just curious.


-Jonathan

[Xytrell]

I was going to address some of the speed of light misunderstandings, but after reading your ghost nonsense, I've decided not to take you very seriously. Have a nice day, sir

You have misinterpreted what I said...

I guess I did. My apologies, Mr chuck.