JWST finds "Strongest evidence of life..."

[4WD]

The pyramids and Baalbeck still amaze me. Baalbeck even more so. Those stones are absolutely massive. It's truly mind boggling how some of the ancients constructed so many of the megalithic structures found around the world.

We've barely explored the ocean - 5%?

I'm not a Graham fanboy by any means, but he's decent.

This particular video was pretty good:

View attachment 274160

The Beef Wellington next door was amazing too!

 

[Al]

Remember that that molecule was on that planet 1.7X10^13 years ago.

Except the universe is only 1.4 ^ 10 old but who is counting. We know there is life out there. But I guess this just confirms it.

 

[dnewton3]

Well said, IMO. I assume, for better or worse, "life" is referring to carbon based life forms, as you pointed out. Is there the possibility of far far more types? Why not? Of course as self centered humans, we tend to think we are kings and important, so there's that.

Your comment reminds me of the original Star Trek episode where the miners were being attacked by the silica based blobs which are holes in the rock. The point being that the indigenous "life" wasn't carbon based. Even decades ago the concept of other life forms were being discussed. I don't discount this concept at all. I'm not saying it's true or not; just willing to accept the possibilities.

What I love about Science is it attempts to take a systematic approach with definitions so that we may understand, communicate and teach each other.

Yes!

It's kinda nice to realize that I know I only know a little. So many have to have all the answers and are only open to what they wanna hear... Rough way to go.

IMO, our world would be a better, more prosperous and safer place if we focused on Science rather than what's going on today.
These lectures are a breath of fresh air. Oh yeah, and the Universe is big. That's all I can say.

I would agree. As long as "science" isn't biased by ideological directives or self-serving greed-based falsification. I find myself becoming very skeptical of academia these days. So much fraud and garbage out there now. "Studies" and "articles" being written by AI, or with the help of AI, and end up just being junk. There's a very interesting YT channel by Pete Judo; he reveals academic fraud in various forms as part of his approach to behavioral studies. The sad part is that this crap detracts from real science; it pollutes the field with junk and makes it difficult to discern real from fake. Even some very, very prominent folks have been caught up in faking data and studies, to very detrimental ends such as medical advice being wrong and costing lives. I yearn for the days past when scientists were about pure research and accurate processing of data, without trying to manipulate the results. And I'm sure there are plenty of "good" scientists still out there. Unfortunately they are being overshadowed by those who see the field as a means to an ideological end.

 

[KrisZ]

Does anyone have an image of this K2-18b planet?
I found, what appears to be an edited image of the K2-18 star, which depicts the orbits of the planets and the habitable zone.
The rest are all "artist depictions".

 

[dnewton3]

@dnewton3

Time is relative and just like the distances of the universe, another idea to wrap ones head around. It may be that in the almost 14 billion years the universe has been, there have been planets just like ours that have gone through their life cycle already, some ended early (massive asteroid impact), those equal to ours, and those just beginning. The universe has a cycle of life, but much larger scale.

Entirely possible. I would agree there is no reason to exclude these concepts.

All of your thoughts on "why haven't we had contact" could be exactly why there hasn't been...that we know of.

Again - true, as a possibility.

Considering all the random things that happen and given enough time, it doesn't seem out of the question. Combining the above quote with the question of why we haven't had contact, it make more sense that it is random and takes a special set of circumstances. After millions of years, the dinosaurs got taken out by a random big rock and almost all life with it. If it happened to be much bigger, we would probably not be here asking these questions!

This is where my concern is based. I refer to my training in statistical analysis; the concepts of averages, variation, etc. The distribution of "normal" as defined by the typical bell-curve.

If we accept that life and time and distance are infinite, then we have to also accept that the likelihood of "average" (normality) plays into this. Is it "possible" that Earth is (or was, or ever will be) the most advanced planet in the universe, and the trillions of forms of life here on Earth are the exception to the rule of eternity? Sure, it's "possible". But it's not "probable". Given the limitlessness of infinity, then "average" is the most likely status of any one randomly selected example. Our planet has a trillion forms of life, and if we believe the law of averages, then one trillion forms of life would be "average".

And yet, we have been scraping the sky for evidence of life (as we know of it) and cannot find much of anything, let alone other star systems with the average of trillions of life forms.

Further, if Earth is "average" in the infinity of time and distance, then would there not also be other "average" forms of life looking to find us? At some point, you'd think we'd come across them or they'd come across us. However, our ability to search in detail only came in the last 100 years; a complete fractional blink of an eye to the concept of infinity.

My point being that it's not really congruent to state we'll accept some forms of science at face value, but then eschew other forms of science to conveniently ignore the contradictions inherent therein. If we accept the very limited evidence of life found elsewhere, we cannot faithfully ignore the fact that math teaches us that when "infinite" sources exist, averages of "normality" MUST be contained therein. And if those examples of averages of normality are absent when sampling infinity, then perhaps the system of the universe isn't as random as some believe. Maybe it's contrived and not happenstance?

I'm not saying I'm right. But I am in no way convinced yet that the universe is a random event. I accept there are challenges to all theories and we are unlikely to have a singular view in concert with everyone's idea of "right".

I don't know who said it, but it was in a debate with people much more brainy than me: "It's ok say say "I don't know."" It gave me comfort. I don't HAVE to have all the questions answered and enjoy the ride of following others finding out things that are beyond me.

THIS !!! I am completely OK with saying "I don't know" and also that "I accept the unknown for what it is and isn't". It's OK to ponder the questions and not have all the answers!

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

I have my opinions which are, let's say, "traditional". But I'm always open to conversation and learning. However, here's what perplexes me ...

There exists, by most agreements of standards, an unlimited universe. Conceptually, the universe is the only example of infinite possibilities... simply put, the universe has no limits and therefore the concept of "life" and "time" have no limits. OK - I can accept that as the premise for conversation.

Then why is it that "life" (very loosely defined) isn't abundant in many forms in a myriad of states of being, and advancement, and easily found elsewhere?

Earth has one basic life form; we're carbon based. But there are (literally) perhaps a trillion* of variations of "life" on our planet. Reptiles, birds, primates, mammals, fishes, insects, trees, grasses, weeds, shrubs, bacteria, viruses ... from single cell organisms to multicellular complex species. It's difficult to comprehend how complex "life" is on this rock we inhabit. Even if you disagree with the "trillion" figure, you have to admit it is massive in its depth and breadth.

Yet, we have, to this date, never found any evidence of such massive life advancement in a mega-form extrapolation anywhere but here on our planet.

If we also accept the law of averages in a statistical sense of "normal", then we would be reasonable in our belief that Earth is "average"; it should be neither on the leading edge nor the trailing end of development. The galaxies (and their solar systems) at the outer edge of the universe are WAY older than ours. So if there were any sense of "time" relative to development of "life", then we'd be somewhere in the middle, would we not? And "life" at the leading edges would have had a nearly-infinite head-start on being more developed than us. If "life" is abundant elsewhere in the universe, would not those life forms be easily discovered? Would they not be reaching out? Or, did they check out Earth a few million years ago, find no "intelligent" life, and move on past us; writing off Earth as a non-event - unworthy of exploration? Advanced alien life forms; sure, they may well exist. But how long did it take for them to become "advanced"? Life here on Earth has gone nearly exponential in development in just 100+ years; from steam engines to rocket ships. From basic wired lights to self-learning AI. And yet "life" elsewhere hasn't found a way to hyper accelerate, given that it's billions and trillions of years ahead of us?


Some have theorized that life on Earth is simply a wildly optimistic cosmic mistake; a culmination of the right elements conforming amino acids and proteins into mass development and diversification, resulting in a happenstance combination of opportunities and luck. I have my doubts.

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. I'm open to opposing views. I think the truth is somewhere between science and other views. But I just can't wrap my head around the fact that if we accept a purely accidental development of life on Earth, and we believe time/space are infinite, then how is it we're the only example with (literally) a trillion variations of life, and we can't hardly find anything else, anywhere. And "it" hasn't found us, either ...



* https://www.sciencealert.com/the-la...ated-that-earth-is-home-to-1-trillion-species
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_life_forms

Google Fermi Paradox, Dark Forest hypothesis, Habitable Zones

 

[barryh]

This planet where they have detected evidence of life is 2.5 times the size of earth. Assuming similar density the mass would be over 15 times more than earth. Due to the increased radius the gravity at the surface would not be 15 times earths gravity but surprisingly only approximately 2.5 times high. Still that would likely increase the difficulties for intelligent life and if they exist they would be squat little things.

The escape velocity for this planet might make a visit from them unlikely but if they come they will be very strong.

 

[Owen Lucas]

Carbon has a tendency to form into complex structures, it's just the nature of organic chemistry.

Amino acids (carbon molecules) have been found in asteroid samples, some that are not natural to earth and some that are.

It's only a matter of time over the last 13ish billion years that this chemistry has lead to life and even civilizations that have come and gone millions of times.

 

[Allaned]

Except the universe is only 1.4 ^ 10 old but who is counting. We know there is life out there. But I guess this just confirms it.

Maybe I got the exponent wrong when I converted the number of miles quoted in the article to light years but I agree with your point. This finding from the satellite telescope states that there was a certain organic molecule on that planet a long, long time ago.

 

[dnewton3]

I would be curious about the error factors in analyzing light/gas interface source information from 700 trillion miles away; seems like quite a challenge. How much can/will that light signature be affected by space dust, and electromagnetic influences along its path? I confess I'm ignorant of the details of these topics, and find them fascinating.

 

[JeffKeryk]

I would agree. As long as "science" isn't biased by ideological directives or self-serving greed-based falsification. I find myself becoming very skeptical of academia these days. So much fraud and garbage out there now. "Studies" and "articles" being written by AI, or with the help of AI, and end up just being junk. There's a very interesting YT channel by Pete Judo; he reveals academic fraud in various forms as part of his approach to behavioral studies. The sad part is that this crap detracts from real science; it pollutes the field with junk and makes it difficult to discern real from fake. Even some very, very prominent folks have been caught up in faking data and studies, to very detrimental ends such as medical advice being wrong and costing lives. I yearn for the days past when scientists were about pure research and accurate processing of data, without trying to manipulate the results. And I'm sure there are plenty of "good" scientists still out there. Unfortunately they are being overshadowed by those who see the field as a means to an ideological end.

I guess I see being skeptical as part of the game, and certainly part of Science. IMO, we have to question everything, especially ourselves.

Regarding AI, AI is a tool and like any tool can be used correctly or not so correctly. I'm not sure if you have seen the KIPAC lectures I have posted. I understand not everyone has the optimism and expectation of AI worth that I have. Artificial intelligence is evolving quickly and according to Bill Gates, it’s poised to disrupt fields once thought immune to automation. In a recent conversation, the Microsoft co-founder pointed to healthcare and education as two professions that may soon look very different thanks to the accelerating capabilities of AI.

I would be curious about the error factors in analyzing light/gas interface source information from 700 trillion miles away; seems like quite a challenge. How much can/will that light signature be affected by space dust, and electromagnetic influences along its path? I confess I'm ignorant of the details of these topics, and find them fascinating.

Spot on. This very topic is included in the lectures I have attended and every thing I have read. There are other possible explanations; skepticism is critical as you have pointed out before. That's good Science and leads to better conclusions.

 

[JHZR2]

Does anyone have an image of this K2-18b planet?
I found, what appears to be an edited image of the K2-18 star, which depicts the orbits of the planets and the habitable zone.
The rest are all "artist depictions".


View attachment 274291

More or less all of it has to be computer or artist improved. The sensors on these new systems are impressive. I forget what JWT is, like 200 Giga-Pixels or something like that? So 1000x larger and better than any digital camera…. And these planets are light shifts on single pixels or a few pixels on an entire array. There’s no orbiting planet revolving around in plain sight.

I would be curious about the error factors in analyzing light/gas interface source information from 700 trillion miles away; seems like quite a challenge. How much can/will that light signature be affected by space dust, and electromagnetic influences along its path? I confess I'm ignorant of the details of these topics, and find them fascinating.

My thought as well. How would wavelength and frequency shift over those distances and through whatever and however many clouds of gas, or speckles of dust along the way?? I get it that with the right consistent sampling, you could possibly conceive some variations that imply planets. But to think that with the background, local, and far possibilities for variation, that it would be able to piece input chemical speciations with any accuracy, seems dubious.

 

[Bladecutter]

Space is a fantastically large area.
In all of space, there are an unknown number of stars, that contain an unknown number of planets.
Time, also, has been ticking away, with no way of knowing how far back it goes.

So, to assume that there isn't life (any version, regardless of complexity) out there, somewhere, and there never had been before our little planet existed, is just arguably stupid. Maybe the life on one of those planets in the older section of space is already long dead. Maybe life is just starting to exist in the newer section of space.

We, meaning those of us here reading this thread today, will never learn the answer.
We don't have the ability to find out.
If our planet survives long enough, maybe some distant future humans will create the technology that can find out the answer.
Regardless, finding out the answer will take time, and technology, both of which this current era of Human life doesn't have the patience or intelligence to truly invest in, because of its own selfishness.

Until someone finally decides "I want to find out what's over there", and they specify a target, and devote the resources to get a probe over there, technology will never start developing in the directions needed to travel the vast distance between here and the next closest place that might hold something of interest to look at.

Hell, we haven't even put a camera on every planet and moon in our own solar system yet.
No one has even tried.
How much could communication, power, storage, and propulsion systems improve if we decided that putting stuff in orbit around the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would be worth reallocating a few percent of the vast number of dollars that we currently waste making people's lives on this planet miserable every single day that passes?

I personally love seeing new images from Mars.
I wish someone would expand the program to include everything in our own system.
If you keep doing that, then it will eventually expand further and further away.

I think it would be a **** shame if life on this planet goes out before we see images from another planet in another solar system.
At the rate we're going, and the lack of value so many members of this forum put on science in general, I think it's highly likely that exactly that will happen.

Hell, people complain on here about things like bucket valve lifters and direct injection every single day of the week.
I can't imagine the endless complaints they would have about the technology needed to send a rover and a satellite to the moons of Uranus and Neptune. The list of comparisons to the Voyagers tech would be unbearable.

 

[Allaned]

Space is a fantastically large area.
In all of space, there are an unknown number of stars, that contain an unknown number of planets.
Time, also, has been ticking away, with no way of knowing how far back it goes.

So, to assume that there isn't life (any version, regardless of complexity) out there, somewhere, and there never had been before our little planet existed, is just arguably stupid. Maybe the life on one of those planets in the older section of space is already long dead. Maybe life is just starting to exist in the newer section of space.

We, meaning those of us here reading this thread today, will never learn the answer.
We don't have the ability to find out.
If our planet survives long enough, maybe some distant future humans will create the technology that can find out the answer.
Regardless, finding out the answer will take time, and technology, both of which this current era of Human life doesn't have the patience or intelligence to truly invest in, because of its own selfishness.

Until someone finally decides "I want to find out what's over there", and they specify a target, and devote the resources to get a probe over there, technology will never start developing in the directions needed to travel the vast distance between here and the next closest place that might hold something of interest to look at.

Hell, we haven't even put a camera on every planet and moon in our own solar system yet.
No one has even tried.
How much could communication, power, storage, and propulsion systems improve if we decided that putting stuff in orbit around the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would be worth reallocating a few percent of the vast number of dollars that we currently waste making people's lives on this planet miserable every single day that passes?

I personally love seeing new images from Mars.
I wish someone would expand the program to include everything in our own system.
If you keep doing that, then it will eventually expand further and further away.

I think it would be a **** shame if life on this planet goes out before we see images from another planet in another solar system.
At the rate we're going, and the lack of value so many members of this forum put on science in general, I think it's highly likely that exactly that will happen.

Hell, people complain on here about things like bucket valve lifters and direct injection every single day of the week.
I can't imagine the endless complaints they would have about the technology needed to send a rover and a satellite to the moons of Uranus and Neptune. The list of comparisons to the

Hoping your day improves.

 

[JeffKeryk]

How big is big? Well, let's take our little corner of the Universe.
Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, or 671 million MPH. Our MP3 is the fastest I've ever gone, I think. It's a paltry 10 second qtr mile car. Light has traveled 186,000 * 10 miles in that 10 seconds... Tesla loses that round.

The moon is about 240,000 miles away; light travels between us 1.3 seconds.
Wanna fly to the sun? Sure. Light takes 8.3 minutes to go 93 million miles.

Hey, go big or go home. Let's go to our nearest galaxy, Andromeda. Light takes 2.5 million years to get to us, at 671,000,000 MPH.
Oh yeah, the observable universe radius is 46.5 billion light years, last time I checked. Bring a lunch.

Are we the only ones? Beats me.