Dinosaurs From Space!

Tinkerpeach said:
I am a political scientist, not a hard science girl.

I can't answer that with any knowledge of the subject.

I am merely implying it could be possible.

Our knowledge of the Universe is hardly complete.
Click to expand...

I already knew that. I'm playing with you because I'm bored.
 
Lightbringer said:
I already knew that. I'm playing with you because I'm bored.
Click to expand...

I am an expert in a few subjects but most I have to research before I answer.

I know politics and history, and cooking and conspiracies, that's about it.

Biology and space are not in my wheelhouse but I love to learn.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Measured only from a size and composition standpoint, that's correct. Measured from a results standpoint, then it's completely wrong according to all current evidence.

Agreed. Results count. :)
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken, the "average" or most common star in the observable universe is the M type red dwarf.

Most stars occur in binary systems.

While our G type star is not particularly rare, it is in the decided minority.

The fact that our star is enriched in heavy elements, and is a unitary star rather than a binary system puts it in the minority.

Last, our star is relatively young. By cosmic standards, pretty bloody young. Most stars were formed in the first few billion years after the big bang, after which the rate of new star formation substantially declined.


When my 8th grade science teacher told us the sun was a totally average and completely boring normal star, she was working with the outdated knowledge of the 1970s.
 
Doc Dutch said:
No shit. That's my point. No evidence and highly unlikely...especially without opposable thumbs or similar digits. :)

Yes, it is. Over 2B galaxies. Our galaxy has about 100B stars.

Actually, we do. The laws of physics are the same on Earth as they are on other worlds. You're free to believe magic and spirits exist on other worlds, but that is less likely than space-faring dinosaurs with opposable thumbs.
Click to expand...

I actually think the Earth is a good laboratory for the types of forms life can theoretically take shape in.

This planet is 4.5 billion years old, plenty of time for evolution to tinker with different types of biology.

The Earth has been host to extreme variations in geochemical, thermal, and environmental conditions. So we have had an opportunity to see how biology responds to a huge range of conditions.
.
But we have never seen evidence for exotic forms of life, like silicon based life, or exotic biochemistry.

All life is carbon based, and it is all based on the same basic DNA framework.
 
Cypress said:
I actually think the Earth is a good laboratory for the types of forms life can theoretically take shape in.

This planet is 4.5 billion years old, plenty of time for evolution to tinker with different types of biology.

The Earth has been host to extreme variations in geochemical, thermal, and environmental conditions. So we have had an opportunity to see how biology responds to a huge range of conditions.
.
But we have never seen evidence for exotic forms of life, like silicon based life, or exotic biochemistry.

All life is carbon based, and it is all based on the same basic DNA framework.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it could have gone the other way. Hard to say why some forms survived and some didn't.

The supposition about dinosaurs is interesting. If the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event hadn't happened, it's highly likely dinosaurs would still be around in forms other than chickens, pigeons and reptiles.

OTOH, impact events have caused several mass extinctions so it may just be the way of the Universe.
 
Cypress said:
Unless I'm mistaken, the "average" or most common star in the observable universe is the M type red dwarf.

Most stars occur in binary systems.

While our G type star is not particularly rare, it is in the decided minority.

The fact that our star is enriched in heavy elements, and is a unitary star rather than a binary system puts it in the minority.

Last, our star is relatively young. By cosmic standards, pretty bloody young. Most stars were formed in the first few billion years after the big bang, after which the rate of new star formation substantially declined.


When my 8th grade science teacher told us the sun was a totally average and completely boring normal star, she was working with the outdated knowledge of the 1970s.
Click to expand...
Given the current evidence, looking for unitary G-type stars may yield the greatest results in finding life.

Although I know about binary stars, I'm not familiar with the orbital mechanics of such systems. Specifically, whether life would be possible given the extremes such a system would exert on its planets.

An M-type red dwarf might still harbor life since it probably has a "Goldilocks Zone" like G-type stars, but I don't know about the stability of such a star.
 
Nomad said:
Who gets to say what is and is not allowed in a conversation that speculates about unknown creatures on unknown planets?

You?

I don't think so. :fu:

The term "known universe" is a misnomer anyway, because we know almost nothing about it.

We don't even know what kind of planets exist on the other side of our own galaxy much less what kinds are in other galaxies.

All your blather about how telekinesis can't exist in our universe because it doesn't exist on Earth is just another example of your desperation to engage someone in one of your typical endless trivial, hair-splitting arguments over subjects you know virtually nothing about.

Get a life.
Click to expand...

Sorry to have triggered you, YesMad. LOL
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed, but it could have gone the other way. Hard to say why some forms survived and some didn't.

The supposition about dinosaurs is interesting. If the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event hadn't happened, it's highly likely dinosaurs would still be around in forms other than chickens, pigeons and reptiles.

OTOH, impact events have caused several mass extinctions so it may just be the way of the Universe.
Click to expand...

The fact that a massive gravitational body like Jupiter has protected Earth from more asteroid impacts than we otherwise would have had is another reason we can't just assume life is just common in the universe wherever liquid water exists.

It might just require a perfect storm of conditions.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Given the current evidence, looking for unitary G-type stars may yield the greatest results in finding life.

Although I know about binary stars, I'm not familiar with the orbital mechanics of such systems. Specifically, whether life would be possible given the extremes such a system would exert on its planets.

An M-type red dwarf might still harbor life since it probably has a "Goldilocks Zone" like G-type stars, but I don't know about the stability of such a star.
Click to expand...

Maybe M type stars are the ideal place to look for life. Those bloody things last forever, giving evolution all the time it needs to kick start life.
 
Cypress said:
The fact that a massive gravitational body like Jupiter has protected Earth from more asteroid impacts than we otherwise would have had is another reason we can't just assume life is just common in the universe wherever liquid water exists.

It might just require a perfect storm of conditions.
Click to expand...

Agreed with the "perfect storm of conditions". Based upon the results, everything needs to be perfect and, even then, life may not arise.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Sorry to have triggered you, YesMad. LOL
Click to expand...

Don't worry about supposedly having done something you're nowhere near capable of doing due to your obviously limited imagination and amateur level of knowledge of this and every other subject, coupled with an overly inflated opinion of yourself, Dork Douche.

Now go back to playing little spaceman.

9781915005366.jpg
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed with the "perfect storm of conditions". Based upon the results, everything needs to be perfect and, even then, life may not arise.
Click to expand...

Wow, what deep understanding you have of the subject, Dork Douche!!! :whoa:

You must have watched a NOVA special on PBS once to have a firm enough grasp of astronomy to make such a statement. :laugh:
 
Nomad said:
Don't worry about supposedly having done something you're nowhere near capable of doing due to your obviously limited imagination and amateur level of knowledge of this and every other subject, coupled with an overly inflated opinion of yourself, Dork Douche. ...
Click to expand...

No worries, YesMad. I'm clearly happier than you. :)
 
I have only skimmed this thread, but it is evident that some believe that the Pentagon is lying to them. If they stopped hanging out here so much, they would be up to speed on current events.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
I would imagine that other intelligent life resembles nothing like life here on our planet.

There may be some of those of course but we also know that life can flourish under all sorts of conditions.

Perhaps there are lifeforms that can exist in space.

Who knows.

We need the government to release their information on this.
Click to expand...

I would say, it depends...

Life on some planet will adapt to the conditions of that planet. Temperatures, gravity, surface conditions like how much water, land, etc., there is, and a plethora of other things would determine that. On a planet similar to Earth, it's likely life similar to Earth evolves. That doesn't mean a close match, but the big concepts like size, biological processes, layout, would be similar. On a planet very different from Earth life would also be very different in many respects. However, at its simplest, one-cell lifeforms and such, it's likely similar virtually everywhere it exists.

There are lifeforms, even on Earth, that can survive in space. Tardigrades on Earth can survive just about anything including being in space for extended periods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top